Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Ronald Reagan, in one of his more famous speeches, said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." The reason was clear: it was a wall that kept people from freedom.

There is another wall that is in the news, but it is a wall that should not be torn down because it is a wall that protects those who wish to live in freedom from the terrorists who live on the other side. One of the reasons the wall is in the news is because friends of the terrorists took Israel, the country building the wall on its own borders, to court claiming that enforcing your borders is wrong because it "causes undue hardships" to those who wish to enter your country—whether you want them to enter or not!

The International Court of Justice Politics and Bureaucracy proved once again why the United States should disassociate itself from the United Nations Bureaucracies. In an advisory opinion about the wall between Israel and the West Bank of Jordon, the court declared that the wall was "illegal".

At the heart of its decision was the claim that the wall was harmful to people in the "occupied territories". I guess some clarification about where those lands are and who they belong to may have helped them reach a different decision.

From the beginning, the land was termed in this way (emphasis added):

"Legal consequences" of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

Construction of the wall severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and is therefore a breach of Israel's obligation to respect that right.

First of all, the territories are "occupied" only in the sense that Israel has not claimed all of them. Jordon, which owned that land prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war (won by Israel) officially gave up their claims to those lands. Essentially those lands belong to Israel, but they have chosen not to annex them at this point.

There are, of course, many Arabs living on those lands, including some displaced by that conflict and other wars. They have also laid claim to those lands. That claim should be adjudicated before any court grants them standing to sue over a physical construct in what can only be termed as Israeli land in a legal sense.

Another problem with the ruling is that only the alleged plight of the Palestinians was seriously considered. Israeli security concerns were largely ignored:

Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control § Article 51 not relevant in the present case.

The wall is certainly inconvenient, but then so are building doors and turnstiles and security checkpoints. Any inconvenience to the people trying to enter the building must be considered alongside the security concerns and goals of the entry point mechanisms.

The court's decision that Israel must dismantle the wall is ludicrous. Every sovereign state has the right to self-defense. Israeli security is at the heart of this matter. For the court to dismiss that issue out of hand ignores reality and shows that politics are guiding their decisions, not the rule of law.

Read the dissenting opinion of Judge Buergenthal for more information on why this decision sets a bad precedent.

The lesson for the United States is that one day we may wake up to see the following headline:

United States banned from enforcing border with Mexico!

The International Court of Justice has ruled that self-defense is not a valid reason to build a barrier to entry along your own border. It is the inconvenience and hardship suffered by those trying to cross into your country that receives the attention in this type of case.

It is therefore illegal to enforce your own borders in such a way that it inconveniences anyone trying to enter your country—whether their entry is legal or not and without regard for their intentions once they are inside your country.

Correspondingly, the United States will immediately cease and desist any activity which hinders movement across their borders. This includes failing to provide food, water and shelter to people crossing hostile terrain such as deserts and other uninhabited areas especially during times of extreme weather.

Oh yes, it can happen here. It already happened in Israel.

It is a wall that should not be torn down because it is a wall that protects those who wish to live in freedom from the terrorists who live on the other side

Only the alleged plight of the Palestinians was seriously considered.

Every sovereign state has the right to self-defense.

The United States will immediately cease and desist any activity which hinders movement across their borders.