[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 DEPLORING MISUSE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY UNITED NATIONS 
                 GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 14, 2004

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice for its 
advisory opinion on Israel's security fence. I also stand in strong 
support of Israel's right to defend itself against the ongoing threat 
of terrorism.
  There has been considerable debate about the line the security fence 
follows, but there can be no doubt about the effectiveness of the fence 
in protecting against suicide attacks. The fence simply works. There 
has been a dramatic drop in the number of attacks on Israelis where the 
fence is in place and operational. And according to Israel Defense 
Minister Shaul Mofaz, security officials have been able to prevent an 
estimated 95 percent of overall Palestinian attacks.
  The reason there is need for a fence speaks directly to the heart of 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--there are no borders, but there is 
terrorism. There must be direct negotiations between the Israelis and 
Palestinians to reach an agreed upon solution that not only provides 
Israel with secure and defensible borders, but ultimately establishes a 
state for the Palestinians. But when this political debate will be 
resolved is unknown and until Israel has a legitimate partner to 
negotiate with, Israel must protect her people.
  In endorsing the roadmap, even the United Nations acknowledged that 
this is a political debate that can only be resolved through direct 
negotiations. Yet, even though the U.N. Charter states that the General 
Assembly can only refer cases concerning legal issues to the 
International Court of Justice, ICJ, this political matter was taken 
under consideration. In their ruling, the ICJ did not take into account 
the context of the terrorist threat that led Israel to construct the 
fence. Nor did it consider the steps Israel has taken throughout 
construction of the fence. Numerous modifications and changes have been 
made to ease the hardship on Palestinians.
  Most recently--even before the ICJ's ruling--the Israeli Supreme 
Court addressed the position of the fence and its effects on 
Palestinians' access to their homes and jobs. The Israeli government is 
moving quickly to change the route of the security fence. By doing 
this, Israel is responsibly balancing its security needs and the 
humanitarian needs of the Palestinians not involved in terrorists acts. 
Clearly there is no need for an outside organization to pass judgment.
  Ultimately, the ICJ overstepped its jurisdiction by hearing the case 
in the first place, which could have negative consequences for the 
peace process. Over 40 countries, including the United States, Canada, 
and most European Union countries, opposed the ICJ's consideration of 
the case because of their concerns about jurisdiction and 
politicization of the court.
  Israel has said the security fence is a temporary self-defense 
measure. It is not meant to replace the peace process and does not 
preclude final status negotiations. The construction of the fence is 
reversible, but the taking of Israeli lives is not. The ICJ's ruling 
was inappropriate and harmful. The United States needs to stand firm 
with Israel, and as the United Nations continues to consider this 
issue, I call on the international community to recognize Israel's 
absolute right to defend itself.

                          ____________________