Supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks and condemning the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality of the security fence.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 713) deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a majority of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose, the willingness of the International Court of Justice to acquiesce in an effort likely to undermine its reputation and interfere with a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 713, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we come tonight just almost 1 week after truly a dark day in the history of international justice and in the course of this debate and I trust in the course of this Congress' deliberations over H. Res. 713, deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by a plurality of the United Nations General Assembly for a narrow political purpose. I hope that we will have the opportunity to elaborate the genuine significance of the decision by the International Court of Justice relative to the construction of a security fence by the government of Israel.

I intend in the immediate here, before I make any extensive remarks, to yield to my superior and a woman without whose leadership on this issue we would not be here tonight; but let me say by way of context, Mr. Speaker, that when by a 14 to 1 decision the International Court of Justice condemned the construction of a wall being built by Israel and described Israel as an occupying power in occupied Palestinian territory, it was most assuredly a dark day and a day of disgrace for the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is my profound privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, a woman who is not only a distinguished member of this institution, but perhaps one of the most clarion voices in America on behalf of our precious alliance with the people and the nation of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for her passion and her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the last 4 years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering over 1,000 innocent men, women and children. Despite this unprecedented savagery, as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in the New York Times earlier this week, the International Court of Justice's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence.

This court has become a mockery of justice and an international disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another advocate of our strong and historic relationship with a free and democratic Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today urging my colleagues to support H. Res. 713, and I find myself very humbled by the power and the eloquence that has preceded me. So I will simply close, Mr. Speaker, with words of gratitude from my heart and perhaps an explanation why this Midwestern Evangelical Christian finds himself carrying this timely and important resolution before the Congress.

I first want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his strong leadership on this issue, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who continues to be for me an example of everything that is right about what Congress can mean on the world stage on behalf of not only Israel but human rights, and a special thanks and affection to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), without whose leadership this resolution would not be on the floor today. In fact, in its original version, the Pence-Berkley resolution recruited over 160 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats alike; and it is my fondest hope that tomorrow when this measure is voted that we will see an equal reference of strong bipartisan support.

My motivation is very simple. In January this year a dream of my life came true, Mr. Speaker. I traveled to that ancient country of Israel with my beautiful wife, Karen, and in the midst of that inspiring experience, we engaged in security briefings. We found ourselves along a chain-linked fence. In the 2 hours that we toured the security fence, the guards who escorted and protected us received three notices of attempted terrorist incursions.

I came back to this blue and gold carpet with a burden on my heart to help tell that story. I went alongside the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and said we have to get the story out of what the people of Israel are dealing with and the necessity for the fence. And I came back and authored the resolution that will be considered in the Congress tomorrow.

The truth is that the fence saves lives, Mr. Speaker, without any question whatsoever. Evidence is resplendent. We have heard it tonight. Hundreds of suicide attacks but only one from Gaza where Hamas and Islamic Jihad are actually based, but Gaza city and the Gaza area completely surrounded by a fence. In the north of Israel, where a section of the fence has been completed, there has not been a single suicide attack in more than 8 months. Before the first stage of the fence became operational in July of 2003, the average number of attacks was 8.6 per month. In the past 11 months, that has dropped to 3.2 attacks.

I hesitate to use statistics because we are talking about families. We are talking about men and women and one terrible tale after another of teenagers and small children made subject of terrorist suicide bombings. So we ought not to get lost in the numbers. We ought to remember the fence saves lives.

So last week when the International Court of Justice, by a 14 to 1 decision, violating many of its own rules of jurisdiction where it ordinarily would have recognized the authority of the Supreme Court of Israel to decide such matters, as it has very recently with great equity towards the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the government of Israel has literally moved the fence some 20-mile stretches, and recently the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in favor of Palestinians in ordering the fence to be moved. But, nevertheless, the International Court of Justice ignored the sovereign interests of Israel, calling Israel an occupying power and calling portions of that sovereign nation occupied Palestinian territory. And that is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I close simply with the words that I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I believe, as millions of Americans do, that still to this day He will bless those who bless her. And it is my hope that tomorrow this Congress will stand and speak as near as we ever can with one voice that we condemn the International Court of Justice, this act of disgrace, and we stand by our precious ally Israel in this her most difficult hour.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), for the undeserved praise and for his nice demeanor in yielding me such time in the beginning of the discussion on this important resolution before us tonight.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 713, a resolution deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice by the Palestinians. I want to commend the leadership for moving this measure expeditiously to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his efforts in making this a reality tonight.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this as a sign of our displeasure with the politicization of the International Court of Justice for Palestinian terrorist purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that there were no need for such a resolution tonight. I wish that innocent civilians were not routinely murdered and injured by Palestinian terrorists inside of Israel. Yet those responsible for these painful, agonizing injuries celebrate their terror with virtual impunity from the international community as they manipulate mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice to rule in their favor.

As Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat's Fatah said in a joint statement following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, ``We salute the court's decision. This is a good step in the right direction.'' For Palestinian terrorists and their supporters, the door has been further opened.

This past Sunday, less than 2 days after this deplorable decision by the International Court of Justice, this advisory opinion, there was an explosion at a Tel Aviv bus stop which injured 32 innocent civilians and killed one young woman.

Among those injured was Saami Masrawa, an Israeli Arab who leads an Arab-Jewish friendship group in the Israeli area. Saami Masrawa had previously participated in a demonstration opposing the security fence. But after Sunday's bombing he recognizes the value of Israel's security barrier, and he has publicly stated, ``I will now be for it and form an organization in favor of it.''

Mr. Speaker, the barrier is not the issue. Terrorism and the Palestinian's addiction to death are the problems. They must find a leadership free from this kind of terror, free from corruption, free from the idea that terrorism will achieve its political objectives. The notion that terrorism is a legitimate form of interaction with Israel must be abandoned forever.

The construction of the security barrier must be understood as a measured response by Israel to the Palestinians' refusal to abandon terrorism and to surrender its use as a strategy. It is a sign that all Israelis demand that the Palestinians change their ways and make this change now.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis support the construction of the barrier as a way to ensure the safety of the Israeli people and of the nation itself.

It is appalling to see how the United Nations forced this recent judgment by the International Court of Justice. Not only did the issue of the nonbinding opinion last week state that Israel should remove its security fence, but the judges placed into question Israel's right to defend herself.

My colleagues, this right of sovereign nations to provide for its security and that of its people, and to defend against threats against it, is a right accorded to all nations. Unfortunately, the recent opinion seems to draw an exception when it comes to Israel. This is outrageous.

The judges of the Court added insult to injury by suggesting that this basic right of all sovereign nations did not apply because Palestinian terror groups are subnational actors; that is, not nation states.

This reference further minimizes the brutal and abhorrent acts committed by Palestinian terrorists against innocent Israelis. It undermines the actions taken by the United Nations following the terrorist attacks against our own Nation on September 11. It emboldens the terrorists to intensify their brutality and violence against free democratic nations such as Israel and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this process that the International Court of Justice has become politicized, and it is manipulated by the Palestinians for their own evil purposes.

This resolution that I had the pleasure of drafting with my colleagues on the Committee on International Relations, especially the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), addresses this critical issue. It underscores the security barrier is necessary. Israel has the responsibility to protect its people, and the fence has proven to be successful in doing so.

No nation, no international body can claim a right to act in judgment over Israel's sovereign right to protect her people. That the Palestinians of all people question the inherent right of self-defense of Israel from their very tactics of terror is absurd and even Orwellian. The very people launching the attacks against Israel are saying that Israel cannot and should not defend herself.

This judgment by this International Court of Justice is an injustice to

Israel. It is a dishonor to close to 1,000 innocent victims of Palestinian violence since 2000. I call on my colleagues and all Democratic nations to join together to prevent this perpetuation of injustice.

I want my colleagues to look at this poster. I call on our allies and partners, as they consider upcoming resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly seeking to impose the ruling on Israel, to think about the young faces, the old faces printed here on this poster. These are just some of the victims of Palestinian terrorism: babies, middle-aged, young, older Israelis, all innocent victims of Palestinian terrorism.

I want our allies and friends to think of Assaff Tzur. This was a 17- year-old Israeli boy who was just recently murdered, so recently that his name is not on this poster. He was killed in a bus bombing on March 5, 2003, on his way back from school.

I met with the father today of Assaff, as well as with other survivors of terror attacks and with families of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism. There was one common theme. There were mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers, and they said the security barrier could have helped prevent the murder of their daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, grandchildren, fathers and mothers.

In the case of Assaff Tzur, the suicide bomber who murdered him and 15 others on March 5, 2003, today would not have been able to cross into Israel to carry out this attack thanks to the border that stands today. Today, there is a security barrier that prevents terrorists from crossing into that section of Haifa and would have prevented the murder of Mr. Assaff Tzur, 17 years of age.

I think this reality summarizes the need for an overwhelming vote in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), House Resolution 713. Let us send a clear message to the international community of where we stand as a nation. We call on them to side with us and with all democratic nations to side with the victims of terrorism, these faces, and not with the terrorists. The hypocrisy must end. Israel must be allowed to protect herself and remain safe from this kind of terrorism once and for all.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for calling attention to this atrocity, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pence resolution before us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel has been an unwavering friend and ally of the United States for decades. And Israel has stood in complete solidarity with the United States in the Global War on Terror. Over the past half-century, bipartisan support for Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, has been a staple of every U.S. Congress regardless of which party is in the majority. While the United Nations, other international organizations, and the governments of many countries of the world are quick to adopt the positions of Israel's adversaries, especially when Israelis exercise their absolute right to defend themselves, Congress has remained unwavering in its moral stand behind Israel. Again today, by passing House Concurrent Resolution 713--H. Con. Res. 713--a resolution I proudly cosponsored and championed, the Members of this House once again stood fast as the counterweight to most of the world's imbalanced, ``blame Israel'' approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. H. Con. Res. 371, expressed this body's strong support for Israel's construction of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks, and condemned the United Nations General Assembly's decision to request the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality of the fence.

Despite the fact that more than 40 nations, including the United States, 15 members of the European Union, Russia, Canada, Australia and even South Africa believed the International Court of Justice, ICJ, did not have the competence or the jurisdiction to rule on the matter, last week, the ICJ issued an advisory finding that Israel's security barrier in the West Bank is illegal. This ruling shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone as Israel's detractors have successfully manipulated every arm of the United Nations to delegitimize Israel. The U.N. General Assembly itself has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity, passing more than 400 resolutions against Israel since 1964, more resolutions than on any other single subject. But that body has never once investigated the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor has it investigated abuse, torture, and other human rights violations by nondemocratic states in the Arab world.

In 2004, no Israeli has been killed or wounded by suicide bombings in areas protected by the fence, while 19 Israeli citizens have been killed and 102 wounded by homicide attacks in areas without the fence. The fence has produced a 90-percent drop in terrorism emanating from the northern West Bank, formerly the originating point for scores of devastating homicide bombings and other deadly terror attacks.

I commend to all of my colleagues an excellent Op-Ed written by former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laying out a clear and intellectually sound argument for why Israel needs the security fence and why Israel should never surrender its right to defend itself. I would like to have the text of this Op-Ed placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I urge my colleagues to read it and speak out against the blatantly political ruling of the so-called International Court of Justice.

[From the New York Times, July 13, 2004]

Why Israel Needs a Fence

(By Benjamin Netanyahu)

Jerusalem.--While the advisory finding by the International

Court of Justice last week that Israel's barrier in the West

Bank is illegal may be cheered by the terrorists who would

kill Israeli civilians, it does not change the fact that none

of the arguments against the security fence have any merit.

First, Israel is not building the fence on territory that

under international law can be properly called ``Palestinian

land.'' The fence is being built in disputed territories that

Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian

occupation that was never recognized by the international

community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership

of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242,

this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that

provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.

Second, the fence is not a permanent political border but a

temporary security barrier. A fence can always be moved.

Recently, Israel removed 12 miles of the fence to ease

Palestinian daily life. And last month, Israel's Supreme

Court ordered the government to reroute 20 more miles of the

fence for that same purpose. In fact, the indefensible line

on which many have argued the fence should run--that which

existed between Israel and the Arab lands before the

1967 war--is the only line that would have nothing to do with

security and everything to do with politics. A line that is

genuinely based on security would include as many Jews as

possible and as few Palestinians as possible within the

fence.

That is precisely what Israel's security fence does. By

running into less than 12 percent of the West Bank, the fence

will include about 80 percent of Jews and only 1 percent of

Palestinians who live within the disputed territories. The

fence thus will block attempts by terrorists based in

Palestinian cities to reach major Israeli population centers.

Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven

highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of

suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one

has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic

Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a

security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank

security fence has already drastically reduced the number of

suicide attacks.

The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian

leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt

and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and

the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel

reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership

committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence,

those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine

and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.

Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who

send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored

international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on

the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality

of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving

the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to

improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain

that their children are late to school because of the fence.

But too many of our children never get to school--they are

blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where

there is still no fence.

In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have

attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops,

murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented

savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only

twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the

fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of

Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel

will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on

the debased altar of ``international justice.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this all-important resolution.

First, I want to pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), for taking the leadership on this all-important issue, and to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), for her powerful, persuasive, passionate statement. I also want to thank, on our side, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), for her leadership on this issue, and our Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his passionate dedication in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the International Court of Justice ruled that the security fence being constructed by Israel was a violation of international law and called for its dismantlement. Mr. Speaker, I traveled across that fence, and if I had not been persuaded prior to my physical inspection of the fence that it is a desperately needed security measure, my trip along that fence convinced me forever.

Just ask yourself how you would feel if in a neighboring community or across the street there are terrorist gangs who systematically come over to your side and blow up restaurants, places of worship, offices, stores, every facility conceivable. Bus stops. Just anyplace where they can kill innocent human beings. You would be in favor of building a security fence. And the ultimate hypocrisy of this International Court of Justice's decision literally turns my stomach.

This ruling was a perversion of justice that infringes on Israel's inherent and basic right of self-defense, and it willfully and cynically ignores Israel's recent success in reducing terrorism, thanks mainly to its security fence.

The International Court favored the suicide bombers over their innocent victims when they issued this mindlessly politicized decision. They only succeeded in severely diminishing their stature and authority, which I deeply regret.

Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker. The security fence brought significant relief to the innocent men, women and children who are blown up by terrorists. From September 2000, when the intifada broke out, through 2003, there were more than 80 suicide bombings with Israeli targets. This year, with the fence now playing an important deterrent role, there have been only four. Now, one is too much, but there is a dramatic reduction from that vast number of successful suicide bombings to the much smaller number today.

Does this success mean that suicide bombers are giving up? Of course not. But Israel was successful in preventing some 58 suicides bombing attempts within the West Bank just in the last 6 months. The main reason is that the fence is giving Israeli security forces more time to react and to prevent terrorist attacks.

The record in Gaza, Mr. Speaker, is even better. With the help of the security fence, there has been only one deadly suicide bombing that originated from there in recent years.

Do the judges of the International Court care a whit for the well- being of the average Israeli citizen? Regrettably, the evidence suggests that the majority of them clearly do not. Mr. Speaker, this International Court decision sends a message, and here I quote from the resolution, that there is an international indifference to the safety of the citizens of Israel. This is not only morally offensive, it is potentially politically disastrous for the very feeble peace process.

How are Israelis supposed to have the confidence to make peace if the international community that so enthusiastically urges them to make concessions is so callous as to whether they live or die?

Mr. Speaker, the international court's opinion highlights the dangers of an international court dealing in abstractions without full information or full briefing from the parties involved. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the court should never have taken up this case. In the U.N. General Assembly, the resolution passed with support from less than a majority of members of the General Assembly. And during the proceedings, the United States and many of our European friends objected to the court's consideration of this case. But the court did not heed prudence. Instead, it eagerly embraced recklessness and injustice.

The court did not take into account the fence as it is. The court took its decision and wrote its judgment deliberately oblivious to the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court was adjudicating cases about the fence. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court has considered challenges by Palestinians on the routing of the fence and has obligated the Israeli military to relocate the fence to take into concern more fully the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court actually revoked military orders that had been issued, a virtually unprecedented step.

And unlike the international court, the Israeli Supreme Court has the power to enforce judgments. Despite the understandable controversy that the Israeli Supreme Court's decision provoked in Israel, understandable because it will cost Israeli lives, the Israeli government immediately announced that it will comply with the decision of its own Supreme Court. In fact, implementation has already begun.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is the only state in the Middle East where an Arab can take his government to court and stands a good chance of winning. But, Mr. Speaker, the language of the international court's opinion suggests that Israel has no right of self-defense although it clearly has that right under article 51 of the U.N. charter against terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians.

I fully support Israel's right to build a fence to protect itself from the plague of terrorism, and I call on our

administration and all members of the U.N. Security Council to reject any effort to look for Security Council validation for this repugnant international court ruling should such a misguided effort be made.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has been the leader on this issue on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my neighbor and colleague.

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I merely want to express again my thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for the leadership he has shown on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for rendering an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the ``Israeli Wall,'' and condemning the U.N. General Assembly for requesting such an opinion.

This legislation was only introduced last night--and strikes me as the type of knee-jerk posturing that does more harm than good. I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences on the construction of the wall on its current route, an opinion requested by the U.N. General Assembly. The ICJ did so as it has done in the past, and the General Assembly was within its rights to request such an opinion.

Condemning the General Assembly for asking for an opinion, or the ICJ for analyzing the situation and making a nonbinding statement of opinion on the matter is essentially condemning people for asking questions or having an opinion--key elements in civilized discourse or democracy.

The sponsors of this bill, well-intentioned as they are, claim that the advisory opinion denies that Israel has a right to self-defense. This is not so--paragraph 141 states ``The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous and indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.''

The resolution is factually incorrect:

It claims the General Assembly asked for an opinion on the legality of the barrier. They did not. They asked for an opinion on the legal consequences construction of the barrier.

It says that a similar security barrier exists around Gaza. The barrier around Gaza is on the armistice line, not beyond it, does not isolate Palestinian villages, or envelop settlements on territory described by the Israeli Supreme Court as being held ``in belligerent occupation,'' and therefore is not similar.

The resolution is hypocritical--it calls on members of the international community to ``reflect soberly'' on a number of matters-- although this body held no hearings on this resolution, and has not even had 24 hours to review it. I would hazard a guess that fewer than 2 percent of the Members of this body, or their staffs have actually read the opinion in question, much less reflected soberly on it.

The resolution is needlessly belligerent--it threatens that anyone who seriously considers the ICJ ruling to raise questions about the resolution of this issue ``Risk[s] a strongly negative impact on their relationship with the people and government of the United States.'' At this time, we need to be working with our colleagues in the international community to find a solution, listening to what they have to say, rather than threatening them.

The opinion states that construction of the barrier inside Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal under international law. I'm not a lawyer--but I know that if I build my fence on your property, I've got to take it down.

The resolution notes that the Israeli courts themselves have been critical of the barrier, and have directed that changes be made to the wall's route. While this is true, it does not mean that other states concerned with the stability of the region, should not have the benefit of an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of the wall by an outside party.

Interesting points from that Israeli Supreme Court case (which only covered one portion of the fence):

86. Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli

society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that

tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently

struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and

destruction wrought by terror against the state and its

citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to

defend the country and its citizens against the wounds

inflicted by terror. We are aware that in the short term,

this judgment will not make the state's struggle against

those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we

sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according

to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the

state's struggle against the terror that rises up against it,

we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle

according to the law will strengthen her power and her

spirit. There is no security without law. Satisfying the

provisions of the law is an aspect of national security. I

discussed this point in HCJ 5100/94 The Public Committee

against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, at

845:

``We are aware that this decision does make it easier to

deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy--

she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her

enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must

sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a

democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual

liberties constitute an important aspect of her security

stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and

this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.

``That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence

built on a base of law will grant security to the state and

its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of

law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.

A nonbinding opinion is just that. Disagree with it all you want-- pick it apart, show how it is wrong. But to condemn people for voicing an opinion is undemocratic and should be beneath this body.