Well Kirupa, I pretty much agree with you… suprised?
I have been following this case closely because I did an ISU on the International Court of Justice this past year. I really think that a wall is never the best idea, just because it seems to symbolize that discussion is over. However, one can not argue with the fact that the Israelis are safer now. At the same time, the rights of the Palestinians must also be considered, and the current wall is clearly a land grab ploy by Israel.
I’m glad that the decision has been getting some coverage (at least it has been up here in Canada), but I fear that the decision will just fade away in a couple of weeks, and it will have been irrelevant. The ICJ is extremely flawed, in part out of the way it is organized, and in part because countries refuse to give it power. It’s unfortunate that in EVERY case that the United States has been brought infront of the ICJ since it’s creation they have refused to accept the court’s decision, saying that it does not have jurisdiction. While the United States is definitely not the only country to do this, most have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in writing (though they can always pull out of this acceptance) the U.S. has not. I know that it’s to the U.S.'s advantage not to sign it in some cases, but it also hurts them at other times, because what sort of credibility do they have when they bring another country to court, how can they claim that the ICJ has jurisdiction over that country.
But I’ve gone off on a tangent. Israel has refused to change the course of the wall. Will Bush and other world leaders put pressure on Sharon now that the verdict has been given against them? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.