ICJ adopting biased language to make Israel look more evil

One paragraph of the ICJ ruling says:

67. Following an increase in acts of violence from the West Bank, in the early 2000s Israel began building a “continuous fence” (hereinafter the “wall”) largely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem...

Why would the ICJ say a fence is a wall?

For the answer, we look at the original 2004 ICJ ruling against the separation barrier:

67. As explained in paragraph 82 below, the "wall" in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel ("fence") or by the Secretary-General ("barrier"), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly. 

Paragraph 82 does not clear things up:

82. According to l.he description in the report and the Written Statement of the Secretai-y-General, the works planned or completed have resulted or will resuli: in a complex consisting essentially of:

(1) a fence with electronic sensors;

(2) a ditch (up to 4 :metres deep);

(3) a two-lane asphalt patrol road;

(4) a trace road (a strip of sand smoothed to detect footprints) running parallel to the fence;

(5) a stack of six coils of barbed wire marking the perimeter of the complex.

The complex has a width of 50 to 70 metres, increasing to as much as 100 metres in some places. "Depth barriers" may be added to these works.

So a small part was  a wall, most of it was a fence along with other supporting features to make it more difficult to cross. (Over time, Israel has indeed replaced more of the fence with a wall as the fence was constantly breached.)

"Barrier" seems more accurate than either "wall" or "fence," but the ICJ adopted the UN's biased language as the way to refer to it, effectively enshrining anti-Israel bias in its decision. After all, a "wall" evokes draconian measures to limit human rights, like the Berlin Wall. 

The ICJ did the same thing, as we've seen, with the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" that is employs in last week's decision. Gaza was not occupied before Israel's response to October 7, but the UN has called it all "oPT" since the 1990s, so the ICJ - instead of correcting the nomenclature - adopted it and then justified it after the fact.

Even the very question the ICJ was tasked to advise on was loaded with anti-Israel bias baked in. 

What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?

The ICJ should be objective and reject this biased language across the board. Instead, it adopts it. 

Which is yet another reason this is a kangaroo court.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!