The Palestinians will fashion the nonbinding ruling from The Hague into a political battering ram, but their greatest victory may lie in the similarities between the international and Israeli rulings. In his opinion, Aharon Barak, the Israeli chief justice, agreed that Israel holds the West Bank "in belligerent occupation" and is therefore subject to international law. The court accepted, moreover, that Israel cannot build barriers on occupied land if their purpose is political or "motivated by the desire to annex territory." It held that Zionist ideology is not an acceptable justification for seizing occupied lands.

Well I'm not the brightest apple in the shed, but IIRC, the reason that land was "seized" was not because of a "Zionist ideaology" but because all the nations around Israel tried to kill every Jew in the country in several wars and they wanted a securable boarder. I could be wrong of course.

I also don't understand exactly how Barak has jurisdiction over the reasons for an action being done. We don't hear "You can hold prisoners forever if you're doing it because they're suspected white supremacists, but not if you suspect they're Arab terrorists". Better not give anyone any ideas.

Furthermore, I don't see why the Times calls for a "negotiated settlement". We have one already, if the bombings would just stop. Oy.