Both the countries now stand in the court of "world opinion" as whether they abide by and respect rules of international law or ignore it. It is a case where both the members of the UN are put to test for practice what they often preach to respect rule of law.

The Secretary General of the UN said : "I think the decision of the Court is clear. While we all accept the government of Israel has a responsibility and indeed the duty to protect its citizens, any action it takes has to be in conformity with international law and has to respect the interest of the Palestinians."

The Palestinian UN Delegation has sponsored a draft resolution at the UN General Assembly in the light of the decision of the World Court. It seems that the draft will go through discussions among the delegates and will be put to the General Assembly for its adoption.

Thereafter the Palestinian Delegation is to move the Security Council for appropriate action where they are likely to meet objection from the veto-carrying member US. There is a speculation that they may postpone taking it to the Council until the Presidential election is held on 2nd November in the US.

Background of the wall
Palestinians have consistently stated that they do not object to the construction of wall but it should be on the Israeli land. They have pointed out that the wall has not been built on the "Green Line", the border between the West Bank and Israel. Israel thought that it could get away building a wall on Palestinian lands, occupied after the 1967 war, so long its mentor, the US, does not say anything

Since 1967, Israel built settlements on the Palestinian lands (the West Bank) for 320,000 Jewish settlers. The settlements are illegal and contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention on Armed Conflicts of 1949. To protect the settlers, Israel has begun to construct illegally a 700-kilometre wall (fence/barrier) from north to south at a cost of US$ 1.4 billion dollars on the West Bank that belongs to Palestinians.

Israel gives the pretext that the wall is being built on the Palestinian lands to prevent suicide bombers from carrying out attacks inside Israel or against Jewish settlers. The question is why does Israel not build this wall on its own border between Israel and Palestinian lands (West Bank)? For example, India is constructing a fence on the Ceasefire line in the Indian side of Kashmir and not on the Pakistani side of Kashmir.

The answer is simple for Israel. Israel forcibly wants to grab Palestinian lands by constructing a wall on the West Bank. It is like that an owner of a residential house constructs a fence not on his/her own land but on neighbour's land. In the eye of the domestic law, the fence will be illegal and be dismantled with compensation to the neighbour for causing damage to the neighbour's land.

UN GA's request for Advisory Opinion from World Court
The UN General Assembly requested a non-binding Advisory Opinion from the World Court on the legality of the wall being built on the occupied West Bank. Israel did not appear before the Court because it rejected that the Court had no jurisdiction on the issue. Several Western countries including the US and Britain had argued that the World Court should stay out of the issue, warning that any opinion it gave could interfere with the Middle East peace process. Many Islamic countries including Indonesia, Jordan and Egypt appeared and argued that the purpose of the wall was to annex about 17 per cent of the Palestinian lands.

What did the World Court decide?
After spending five months considering the issue, the Court unanimously rejected Israel's argument that it had no right to rule on the legality of the issue. The 15-member Court ruled (15 to1 ) that:

* the construction of the wall and its associated regime was contrary to international law

* Israel was under obligation to cease construction and dismantle the wall

* Israel should compensate owners of land seized to construct the wall

* all states are under obligation not to recognise the situation and ensure Israel's compliance with international law

* the UN ( General Assembly and the Security Council) should consider what further action to take.

Only the US judge, Thomas Buergenthal, dissented from the above findings. Other 14 judges who held the above opinion are from Britain, Brazil, China, Japan, Jordan, Egypt, Germany, France, Hungary, Madagascar, Netherlands, Sierra Leone, Russia and Venezuela. President of the Court, Shi Jiuyong of China, read the Opinion and took almost four hours to read it.

It is a common sense decision of the World Court because no country can build a wall on land belonging to others. The West Bank belongs to the Palestinians and since the 1967 war, it is an occupied land of Israel and contrary to the UN Security Council resolution number 242 of 1967, it has not withdrawn from it.

Rationale of the opinion
The Court held that approximately 975 square kilometers would lie between the "Green Line" and the wall. This area is stated to be the home to 237,000 Palestinians. If the full wall were completed as planned, another 160,000 Palestinians would live in almost completely encircled communities, described as enclaves. As a result of the planned route, nearly 320,000 Jewish settlers would be living in the area between the "Green Line" and the wall.

The above opinion shows that more than three hundred thousand Jewish settlers have been allowed to live not in Israel's territory but in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. This is nothing but simple annexation of Palestinian lands by constructing the wall beyond Israel's territory. Israel does not acknowledge publicly the position and the international media do not seem to highlight this fact.

Furthermore, the ruling shows that the Court is not convinced that the wall was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks. The President of the Court said that the construction of the wall would be " tantamount to de facto annexation".

Non-binding nature of opinion
From 1946 to 1983, the Court dealt with 17 requests for Advisory Opinion, delivering 18 such Opinions. Although, the Opinions are non-binding in character, the UN Security Council is empowered to impose sanctions on a state that does not comply with the Opinion. Each member of the UN has to respect the principles and purposes of the UN Charter that are based, among others, rule of law and justice. The Security Council took such action on South Africa for ignoring an Advisory Opinion from the Court on its hold of South West Africa (now Namibia).

Arab opinion
The wall , according to Palestinians, has separated thousands of Palestinians from their fields, schools and medical services -- hardship Israeli leaders do not care. According to them it is a "racist" wall, worse than the "Berlin Wall" of the Cold War era.

Palestinians and many in the Arab World have hailed the World Court's ruling that Israel's wall is illegal and should be torn down. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat described it as a

" victory for the Palestinian people". Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei said it was "a historic day. The judges said it has to be torn down and we say that we must tear it down."

Israel's insolent reaction
Israel, like a spoilt child, does not accept the opinion because it does not suit it. A senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Raanan Gissin said that "this resolution (opinion) will find its place in the garbage can of history".

Israel's Prime Minister ordered the construction of the wall, ignoring the World Court's ruling and said that the bombing on 11 July at Tel Aviv bus station in Israel was carried out under the "auspices of the ruling", suggesting that the decision would only encourage Palestinian violence. He said : "I want to make it clear, the state of Israel absolutely rejects the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague." Sharon conveniently forgets that the wall is being built on the Palestinian lands, and not on the border of Israel.

This defiant conduct against the ruling of the World Court demonstrates that Israel, with the support of the US, can defy the decision of the World Court because it knows fully well that the US will veto any Security Council resolution against Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said on 10th July, that Israel asked the US to intervene to prevent any Security Council's move against Israel. The US has also reportedly dismissed the UN Court's intervention.

Israel's insolent behaviour shows that being pampered and patronised by the US, it can do anything it likes, even when Israeli action is palpably illegal under international law and contrary to the UN Charter. Some law experts believe that time has come when Israel should be expelled from the UN for its contempt of the ruling of the World Court.

Conclusion
The ruling of the World Court is seen as a moral, legal and political victory for Palestinians. The decision places Israel with an obligation, as a UN member, to dismantle the wall forthwith because its construction is contrary to international law.

While the Bush administration is keen on exporting "freedom and democracy based on rule of law" to other countries in the Middle East, it does not pursue the same when it adversely affects Israel. This demonstrates the double standard of the US policy -- one policy applies to other countries and another to Israel. How the Bush administration can get respect for pursuing such contradictory policy from countries across the world?

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.