As part of the Palestinian attempt to keep up the pressure on
Israel, the UN General Assembly obediently voted on Monday to
ask the International Court of Justice in the Hague to render
an advisory opinion on Israel's security fence. The vote was
much less lopsided than most General Assembly votes against
Israel, as 90 of 191 nations voted in favor, eight opposed,
and 74 abstained. As are all General Assembly votes, this one
was nonbinding and the Court may refuse to hear the case.
The resolution asks the Court to consider the "legal
consequences arising from the construction of the wall being
built by Israel, the occupying power." The resolution, which
was sponsored by 27 Arab, Muslim, and Non-Aligned Movement
nations, gives its own verdict about the fence: "Israel . . .
continues to refuse to comply with international law vis-a-
vis its construction of the abovementioned wall."
Israel said the decision was a "cynical manipulation" of an
apparatus that is designed to promote world peace.
Ironically, the effect is to further the interests of those
supporting terrorism.
Nonetheless, Israeli officials said they would cooperate with
any investigation, saying they would argue the fence is
needed for self-defense against terrorism.
"The Palestinians again used the automatic majority they
enjoy at the UN to further initiatives that not only damage
efforts to create conditions to renew the diplomatic process,
but also damage the UN itself," Foreign Ministry spokesman
Yonatan Peled said.
Peled noted that only 90 of the UN General Assembly's 191
countries supported the motion. He said the motion "tries to
present Israel, the victim of Palestinian terror, as the
accused, while the perpetrators of terror enjoy the defense
of the UN's automatic majority."
Peled said the fence "is a means of self-defense meant to
provide an answer to the wave of Palestinian terror against
Israeli citizens. It is a nonviolent, temporary measure meant
to protect human lives, and its effectiveness has already
been proven."
n remarks broadcast on Israel Radio Tuesday, US Ambassador to
Israel Danial Kurtzer said, "There is a very strong
understanding in Washington of why the fence is being built,
and the support that it has, and we don't have an argument
with that.
"But we do have a view that we've expressed about the route
of the fence, and, frankly, the closer it is to the Green
Line, the less you will hear from Washington with respect to
the fence."
Israel Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman noted that among
the nations that abstained were the vast majority of the
world's democracies, including the entire European Union.
Israel, the US, Australia, Ethiopia, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau voted against the resolution.
Uganda and Cameroon were the only African countries to
abstain.
The vote was preceded by a debate that painted Israel as the
villain and scarcely mentioned the terrorist attacks that
have claimed more than 900 Israeli lives over three years.
In the debate Gillerman called the fence "the Arafat fence.
This is the fence that Arafat built. His terrorism initiated
it and made its construction inevitable. If there were no
Arafat there would be no need for a fence."
Gillerman argued that condemning Israel for building a fence
to halt terrorism while failing to censure supporters of the
violence "is not justice or fair criticism, it is hypocrisy
and double standard. It is self-righteous, self-serving, and
deeply counterproductive. It is the UN at its worst, and it
rewards terrorism."
Deputy US Ambassador James Cunningham called the text one-
sided and said it risked politicizing the court and may
adversely affect implementation of he road map.
While Israel certainly prefers not to go to the Court and its
uncertain outcome, it may win its case there.
"We have a voice," Arye Mekel, Israel's deputy permanent
representative to the United Nations, told JTA. "We can also
make our case for the fence."
The Palestinians went to the General Assembly after their way
was blocked in the Security Council by the US's 16-month-old
policy known as "The Negroponte Doctrine," after the current
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. The
resolutions of the 15-member Security Council carry the
weight of law.
Negroponte and his staff say they arrived at their criteria
after the Palestinians and their advocates responded to the
ongoing bloodshed of the intifadah, launched in September
2000, by putting forth resolutions in the Security Council on
a near-weekly basis. Debates consumed countless hours, yet
did nothing to promote peace.
The United States formulated five clear criteria that had to
be part of Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-
Palestinian situation for the United States to withhold from
exercising its veto power:
Resolutions must --
* contain "robust condemnation of acts of terrorism and all
forms of incitement to terrorism";
* contain "explicit condemnation of Hamas, Palestinian
Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as organizations
responsible for acts of terrorism";
* "call for dismantling the infrastructure, which supports
these terror operations, wherever located";
* "call upon all parties to make a commitment to pursue a
negotiated settlement"; and
* recognize that "the issue of Israeli withdrawal to the
September 28, 2000, positions is connected to an improvement
in the security situation through reciprocal steps by the
Palestinians and Israelis."
*
According to some observers in Jerusalem, the latest General
Assembly decision is a step that, together with other recent
developments, is creating an impression in the minds of
Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders that the momentum has
swung to them, and that Israel is now on the defensive.
The UN's decision came shortly after the UN Security Council
adopted the Road Map, essentially shelving Israel's 14
reservations to the plan. It came at a time when public
cracks have emerged in Israel's ties with the US. And it came
as the solidarity Israel has maintained for the last three
years is unraveling.
The Palestinians say that there is a loss of the Israeli
consensus. This loss of solidarity is apparent, they say, in
the recent pilots letter against targeted killings, the
comments by four former Shin Bet heads that Israel is on the
road to catastrophe, Sharon's poor ratings in the weekly
polls, and the Geneva initiative.
Another area where the Palestinians have identified a degree
of slippage is in Israel's ties with the US, and a change in
the Administration's tone toward the Palestinians. The Bush
Administration conveyed its displeasure over elements of
Israeli policy the last few weeks in a number of public ways,
from trimming $300 million from the loan guarantees, to
President George W. Bush's speech in London in which he had
blunt words of criticism, to US Secretary of State Colin
Powell's public meeting with the architects of the Geneva
initiative.
The Palestinians are also working under the assumption that
Bush will push Israel to make concessions -- even during an
election year -- because as much as he needs Jewish and
Christian Right support, he also needs some kind of
achievement in the Middle East to take to the voters.
These assessments rest on debatable perceptions. The "cracks"
appearing in Israeli solidarity all come from the same small,
hard core Left that dislikes Sharon and dislikes even more
being out of power. The fact that they have been making their
voices heard recently really is a result of the success of
Sharon's military efforts that have succeeded in sharply
reducing the effectiveness of Palestinian terror. It would
have been impossible to stage a show like the one in Geneva
last week if it were competing with images of blown up
buses.
Washington's views on issues such as the settlements have
always diverged from Israel's. However its core support of
Israel's positions is still there; after Powell met with the
Geneva Accord architects, he reiterated that the Road Map is
the way to peace. Again, the relative quiet experienced by
Israel makes it easier for the US to stress its differences
with Israel. Taking $300 million from the loan guarantees is
not that significant -- it only makes a few million dollars
of practical difference to Israel in interest rate
differentials.
