[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL'S SECURITY FENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM FEENEY

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 4, 2004

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Israel's security 
fence.
  In yet another example of political manipulation of a U.N. body, 
Palestinians and their supporters have convinced the International 
Court of Justice to take up the issue of Israel's security fence.
  On December 8, 2003, the General Assembly of the United Nations, 
sitting as an Emergency Special Session, adopted resolution ES 10/14 
requesting the ICJ to render an advisory opinion on the legal 
consequences of Israel's security fence. This recent action by the Arab 
nations is an indignation both in relation to the jurisdiction of the 
Court to address such an issue, and the propriety of such a proceeding.
  The International Court of Justice was set up in 1945 under the 
Charter of the United Nations to be the principal judicial organ of the 
Organization. The blatant use of the ICJ to further a political agenda 
is not only an outrage but an obvious conflict with the original 
purpose of the Court.
  Article 36 of the Court's Statute states that contentious issues may 
only be brought before the Court with the consent of all parties. In 
this case, not only is the issue at hand clearly contentious, but the 
parties have already agreed on appropriate mechanisms for resolving 
such issues between themselves. Israel has voiced their deep 
reservations about the Arab initiative to involve the ICJ in complex 
political issues that should be resolved through negotiation and the 
abuse of the U.N. and the ICJ as part of a narrow political campaign.
  A significant group of states, including the United States, 
Switzerland, Uganda and Italy stated in the General Assembly that they 
oppose the request for an advisory opinion because it goes directly 
against the Road Map and the wishes of the Security Council, which 
unanimously endorsed the Road Map in Resolution 1515 of November 19, 
2003 and which has repeatedly called for resolution of the conflict via 
direct negotiations in accordance with Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 
(1973).
  The Government of Israel has recently reiterated its commitment to 
the Road Map. It believes that those who support the efforts of the 
Quartet and the international community in bringing the sides together 
should stress to the ICJ the importance of not prejudicing that process 
and emphasize that the Court should refuse to respond to the question 
at hand.
  The U.N. General Assembly has been a hotbed of anti-Israel activity, 
passing more resolutions against Israel than on any other subject--more 
than 400 since 1964. In contrast, the body has never investigated the 
Palestinian terror campaign against Israel, nor has it investigated 
abuse, torture and other human rights violations by non-democratic 
states in the Arab world.
  On a host of issues, the U.N. and its agents, in this case the ICJ, 
have become not only irrelevant to the cause of furthering classically 
liberal democracies and peace, but actually hostile to our efforts to 
promote basic freedoms.
  I urge the International Court of Justice to uphold the integrity of 
it's Statute and recognize Israel's security fence as a necessary 
measure to protect their people from those who believe that the path to 
salvation is paved by killing Jewish women and children. Otherwise, 
once again a U.N. entity will end up on the wrong side of peace, 
security, freedom and democracy.

                          ____________________