The three days of hearings in the Hague on Israel's security
barrier closed after the 15 judges in black robes heard a
professor from France defend suicide bombings and question
Israel's right to exist. The judges did not react to her
testimony.
Representing the Islamic nations, Professor Monique Chamilar
Janou, a leading figure in antisemitic circles in France,
delivered the most extreme address of the trial. Janou
claimed the suicide attacks are a legitimate part of the
Palestinian battle against "the bloody Israeli terror against
the Palestinians" and therefore, she argued, the fence is
illegal.
The judges sitting on the bench are not professional jurists
but diplomats unaccustomed to legal polemics. Janou's
argument was well-suited to the International Court of
Justice, which resembles courts in dictatorial nations.
Janou belongs to French circles that deny Israel's right to
exist, support Palestinian terrorism and fan the flames of
neo-antisemitism and hostility toward Jews. All of the
European Arab-sponsored prosecutors are known as pro-
Palestinian enemies of Israel. "Israel has imposed terror on
the Palestinians since its founding," said Janou. "Even if
the wall is moved to the Israeli border it would not be
legal, since the partition decision from 1948 is not a
complete legal document. It lacks the Palestinian people's
consent to the existence of Israel." She asked the judges to
issue an opinion against the fence, and "by doing so they
would contribute to peace."
Following Janou's remarks, which uncovered the Arabs' goal of
denying the legality of the State of Israel itself, the
Chinese judge announced the hearings were over without saying
a word about when the opinion would be announced before being
submitted to the UN General Assembly. According to estimates,
the judges' opinion will be made public within a few
weeks.
European experts say there is no doubt the majority of the
judges will declare the fence illegal. Two or three of them
might support the fence and the absence of a unanimous
decision would make it easier for Israel not to honor it.
Most of the judges are known to be anti-Israel United Nations
members, as impervious to Israeli suffering from terrorism as
the Arabs themselves.
Experts say the judges could take advantage of the
opportunity to depart from the question of the fence and
determine the fence is situated on territory occupied in
violation of the Geneva Convention. From a legal standpoint
this would cause complications for Israel, but this is not a
legal dispute but a political-military wrangle.
Legal experts note the case in the Israeli High Court is
still pending, and based on its reputation the court could
also rule the fence is illegal, further tangling the
government and justifying Arab claims.
During the second and third days of the proceedings, the
world media lost interest in the trial. The demonstrations by
Israelis and other Jews outside the palace where the hearings
were taking place did not help rehabilitate Israel's standing
but did prevent Palestinian propaganda from conquering the
streets of the Hague and dominating the media. Reporters
relieved the tedium by showing images of the blown-up bus and
photographs of the victims of suicide attacks. Generally the
world press covers suicide attacks by rushing to interview
the family of the suicide bomber and writing up his life
story, so this was a welcome change.
