As the International Court of Justice in The Hague begins its hearings today on the legality of the Separation Wall Israel is building in and around the West Bank territories, there will be one important feature missing – Israel.

Israel announced that it will not be sending representatives to the three-day hearing to defend what it calls a security barrier designed to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israel. It says the Wall is a political, not a legal, matter and is, therefore, an issue beyond The Hague’s jurisdiction. Instead, it has sent a 120-page brief along with other documents, unilaterally arguing that Israel is not bound by conventions concerning occupied territories, because the West Bank’s legal status is really disputed territory.

This blatant disregard for international law and human rights is a typical move by Israel, which has laughed in the face of legal rights and decency since it first entered Palestine in 1947. Israel ignored the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which states that “the occupying power cannot make demographic or territorial" changes to the territory it occupies by force. Israel refused to comply with United Nations Resolution 242, calling Israel to withdraw its military forces to the boundaries prior to the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War and thus, returning all Palestinian territories – West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem – it occupied by force. And it also continues to disregard U.N. Resolution 338, which calls on all parties involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to cease fighting and to implement U.N. resolution 242 in all of its parts.

Whether its illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, refugees, extra-judicial killings, military incursions, checkpoint harassment, discrimination against Palestinians living inside Israel, home and farm demolitions and now the separation Wall, it is clear Israel follows its own definition of democratic and international “law.” So even if The Hague decides the Wall is illegal, without Israel’s recognition of a higher authority or rule, there is no guarantee, and little hope, that the Wall will come tumbling down anytime soon. Because the ruling is non-binding, Israel’s only fear is that a pro-Palestinian decision could initiate a lobby for sanctions against Israel, as well as being a public relations disaster.

It also seems hypocritical that a member of an organization, such as Israel’s involvement in the U.N., would bypass laws passed and, in essence, pick and choose which policies it will follow, according to what suits its interests. With the exception of isolating it from trade or financial aid, how can anyone really force Israel to move forward with any sort of peace negotiations or to obey international law? Israel’s approach to such issues raises serious questions about its commitment to promoting peace in the region. On the one hand it operates under such atrocious policies that many in the international community have described as terrorist acts themselves, but on the other, Israel makes strong public statements on its fight against terrorism and its commitment to peace in the region. Note the famous cliché, “Actions speak louder than words.”

As the world becomes smaller and nations enter into more economic, environmental, social and political relations with each other, they must also respect some bit of global governance. This does not suggest that states should jeopardize their sovereignty, but rather legitimize it more on a global scale through international guidelines. This has proved true for the issue of nuclear weapons, especially after The Hague ruled that they violated international humanitarian law in 1996. If Israel truly wants security, a 450-mile barrier of ditches, watch posts and concrete walls is not the solution. It must look to the source of frustration and end the illegal occupation of Palestine.