Now legal experts and politicians are having regrets:  Why did we boycott the proceedings of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, why didn't we take advantage of our right as a State, to ensconce one of our judges on the tribunal, why did we abandon the forum to the Arabs?  But these questions are merely formal.  The material question is, what would have been our argument had we appeared there?  What would our judge have written?  To this question the Israeli establishment has no answer.  And thus, the nation with the highest claim to justice in the world is acting like someone who "has no case"!  

What indeed would the Israeli elite's have argued had they appeared and participated?  The right to self defense?  That battered, worn-out slogan – Security! Security! Security?!

It never even occurred to them to raise the claim for rightful ownership of the Land of Israel , which, in fact, was the main issue that loomed in the background of the entire proceedings.    

The issue of self defense, on the other hand, was completely irrelevant, because the tribunal did not deny Israel 's right to defend itself against terrorism, and didn't negate its right to build a fence or a wall on its sovereign territory, namely, on the green line.  The court based itself on Israel 's admission that Judea , Samaria and Gaza are "occupied territory" and that the Palestinians have a right to establish a state on that territory.  And indeed, if this is so, what right does Israel have to build a barrier on land it doesn't own?  

Only in rare cases in history have self-denial and betrayal come back with such a vengeance so swiftly.  

Yes, Israel should have been present at the international tribunal in The Hague – to cry out the Jewish age-old credo that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.  In principle, it is true that a "wall" cannot be built on occupied land, except that in the hands of Israel – the Land of Israel is not occupied!  For 2000 years, in all parts of the Diaspora, we were not afraid and didn't shy away from declaring this publicly, it was our badge of identity.  Have we been cursed that precisely in our own country we behave like a thief who has no way of justifying the possession of stolen property?   

This is the opportunity to mention a precedent:  The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice at The Hague itself on the issue of Namibia .  The Arabs based their arguments on this precedent, while we deliberately ignored the main part of this opinion, which could have served as first rate support for our case.  

And this is the way the story goes:  Germany had a colony in the southwest corner of Africa , which was taken away from it in the wake of its defeat in World War I, together with the rest of its colonies.  This area was awarded to the state of South Africa in the form of a Mandate, just like the Land of Israel was taken from the Turks, Germany 's allies, and given to the British in the form of a Mandate called " Palestine ".  Who did the giving? - The League of Nations , the UN's predecessor, the seat of which was in Geneva .  The meaning of the word 'Mandate' is authorization:  the League of Nations authorized the Mandatory Power to administer certain territories for a purpose that was defined in the Instrument of the Mandate.  In other words, South-West Africa and the Land of Israel were given to the state of South Africa and to Britain , respectively, in trust, under explicit terms.  

Upon the outbreak of World War II the League of Nations was dissolved and the regime of Mandates collapsed.  Later, South Africa adopted a racist Apartheid policy which it implemented in South-West Africa – Namibia – as well.  When it was claimed that according to the Mandate, racist discrimination was not allowed in Namibia , South Africa replied that there was no longer a Mandate, because the League of Nations had become defunct.  The issue was submitted to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which issued its statement of opinion, that indeed the 'Mandate' itself does not exist anymore, but that the substantive obligations arising from the terms of the Mandate continue in force, being the raison d'être and original objective of the whole mandatory arrangement, and as such – "the sacred trust of civilization."   

In time, South-West Africa became an independent state, Namibia .  On a portion of the western part of the former British Mandate of Palestine, the independent State of Israel was established, while to the east of the Jordan River , which also constituted part of the Mandate, the sovereign Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was created.  Thus, there remained in the world only one single area, formerly a Mandate, and now still devoid of sovereignty, and that is YESHA – Judea , Samaria and Gaza .  Because of the similarity between the situation of Namibia before attaining sovereignty and YESHA, it should have been undisputable for the Namibia precedent to apply. This means, that whoever holds this territory should be obliged to implement there, as a "sacred trust of civilization" – the terms of the British Mandate, that letter of instructions, which constituted the very purpose of the Mandate.  And what was this trust and purpose? – The explicit "recognition to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."  This is the exact wording in the preamble of the Mandate, and there is no denying that it included, and continues to include, all the territory of Judea , Samaria and Gaza .  And it is also written there, that "close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands … - in cooperation with the Jewish Agency" shall be facilitated.   

Why was it so hard for Israel's representatives to bring before the Court that very same precedent and to claim:  What this court decreed to be a "sacred trust of civilization" in Africa should justly be considered a sacred trust here in former Palestine as well, and therefore the historical right of the Jewish people to reestablish its national home in Judea, Samaria, Gaza (YESHA) is no less a sacred trust!  Which means that we are not 'occupiers' in the Land of Israel and the fence we built is not on foreign territory.  

Show me another litigant in the whole world who has available to him such a strong argument, supported by such eminent legal scholars as the renowned Professor Julius Stone and the great experts on international law Eugene Rostow and Steven Schwebel as well as others, who abandons his just case, removes himself from the court and behaves like an accused criminal who has nothing to say in his defense!  No wonder the International Court , citing the Namibia case, referred to no other than the Palestinian claim as constituting that "sacred trust of civilization," completely disregarding the Jewish claim, which was not even raised before that forum.  

And thus, in the Palestinians the ancient biblical motto has been realized:  Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?  They killed almost 1500 Jews with their terrorism, and they are also claim to inherit the Land of Israel , a land that is not theirs. 

In the light of the Namibia precedent the betrayal by the Sharon Government, of Zionism and the Zionist mission on behalf of the Jewish people, truly cries out to the heavens.  In a Government meeting Sharon called the Court's statement of opinion a 'whirlwind,' and of this it has been written:  "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."  You, Ariel Sharon, have sowed this wind, a malignant and treacherous wind – you have betrayed the Land of Israel , the settlement movement, your friends, your party, your constituency, and with your own hands you have brought upon yourself and upon us this incriminating verdict of the International Court of Justice.  

Nobody harbors illusions as if the representatives of the countries who comprise the tribunal and who are known to decide in accordance with the instructions they receive from their respective Governments, would necessarily have accepted the claim of rights of the Jewish State over the Land of Israel .  They were bound to have found an excuse to evade the validity of the Namibia precedent.  But the entire proceedings, and consequently the verdict, would have been acted out on a different basis, with Israel taking a reasonable and sound initial position.  The debate would have shifted to a completely different level, that of the right of ownership over the Land.  Here, only here, we would have had a strong and convincing claim, that this is in the least a territorial dispute between two nations, hence a non-justiciable, political issue, concerning which the Court obviously has no authority to intervene.  Otherwise, the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, the Basque conflict in Spain, the Chechen conflict, the occupation of Iraq, etc. etc., should all have been transferred from the battlefields and from the foreign offices and referred to the Hague Tribunal!  

Only our own position that the heart of the Land of Israel is "occupied territory," designated for Palestinian sovereignty – is to blame for the sensational change of roles by the International Court of Justice, replacing the Jewish people, the true beneficiaries of the "sacred trust" of the British Mandate, with the Palestinian impostors.

This is the sad reward, deserved by the Jewish people and its leader, for the betrayal of the Land of Israel , entrusted to them thousands of years ago.