World Court to rule on barrier decried as a misery and hailed as life-safer

EVERY time Nisreen Hurub needs kidney dialysis, she has to take a long and painful detour to hospital around Israel's West Bank barrier.

Every day that passes without another bombing or shooting near his shop in northern Israel, Michael Nachmass is thankful for fences and walls that let him breathe a little easier.

In one of the highest-profile decisions of its 58-year history, the World Court rules tomorrow on the legality of a barrier that Palestinians decry as a land grab that multiplies misery, but which Israelis call a life-saver.

Palestinians hope the court will say it is illegal for the Jewish state to build on land captured in the 1967 war, increasing international pressure on Israel and possibly triggering a call for sanctions.

But the advisory opinion of the Hague-based International Court of Justice is non-binding and Israel, with US-backing, does not accept the court's right to rule. The impact of the completed 200km (125 mile) stretch of fence, ditch and concrete wall is already huge. Eventually it should stretch for 730km.

"I cry from frustration," complains Hurub of her journey from the West Bank village of Habla to hospital in nearby Qalqilya. A once simple trip now takes hours.

Thousands more Palestinians have been cut off from farms, schools, relatives and cities they used to rely on.

But in the town of Hadera, Nachmass thanks the barrier for stopping a series of deadly attacks by militants from the nearby West Bank.

"People are not as frightened as before," he said, recalling carnage and panic on the street outside his shop.

Israel calls the barrier essential to stop suicide bombings and shooting attacks like those that have killed hundreds of Israelis during nearly four years of conflict. It argues that the route is the best for security.

But the Palestinians, who pursued their call for a World Court hearing via the UN General Assembly, say the route curves deep into the West Bank to annex Jewish settlement blocs and to deprive them of a viable state.

They fear the barrier will cost them far more than they might gain from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's current plan to give up the Gaza Strip, where they also want a state.

If the ruling favours the Palestinians, they might lobby in the General Assembly for sanctions against Israel - similar to the move to ostracise apartheid South Africa after the World Court ruled its occupation of Namibia illegal in 1971.

"The next question would be to ask the international community what it is going to do," said the Palestinians' legal adviser, Michael Tarazi.

He did not detail precise options.

Israeli officials are relying on their American ally's veto in the UN Security Council to defeat any attempt to push through punitive measures if the ruling goes against them.

The Palestinians won some cheer from Israel's High Court last week when it ruled that sections of the barrier needed to be moved to ease Palestinian hardship and ensure access to farmland, schools and cities.

But the court nonetheless said it recognised Israel's security concerns and its need to build the barrier inside the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government snubbed an international group of Mideast mediators in the region to discuss Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, saying it first wants to discuss the pull-out with American officials.