FYI, NR/NRO laws-of-war maven David Rivkin sent me this e-mail about the Israeli fence:

“Dear Rich:

By now, I have read the ICJ opinion regarding Israeli fence in full. It is the worst, most biased, most non-judicial opinion I have ever seen. It ranks right up there with Stalin’s show trials. It engages in no analysis of either the relevant international treaties or says anything about the relevant state practice. Its discussion of history is so biased, it is almost embarrassing. For example, in discussing the genesis of the first Arab/Israeli conflict, it says as follows: ‘The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan [the 1947 UN Partition Resolution], contending that it was unbalanced.’ This is a funny way of describing the fundamental rejection by the Arabs of Israel’s right to exist in an independent state. The opinion also rejects the notion that Israel has any right of self-defense against a non-state actor like the Palestinians. This is completely contrary to international law, that has always recognized that one can engage in a state of armed conflict against a non-state actor. It is also inconsistent with the Security Council’s recent — post-September 11 — resolutions, which specifically acknowledge that the U.S. has the right to defend itself against al Qaeda. International law aside, since the UN treats the Palestinian authority as a quasi state, the ICJ position is particularly hypocritical. The bottom line is that this opinion brings discredit to the Court and casts international law as nothing more than a tool of partisan politics. Other than this, this is a damn good opinion.”