Backing up the argument: Until Palestinian terrorism stops, Israel, like any other country, should not be told by any nation or international body how to protect its own citizens. The UN General Assembly’s vote in August 2004, demanding that Israel obey the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion and dismantle its anti-terrorist fence will only embolden the Palestinians in their intransigence and spur the belief among them that they can still somehow defeat the Israelis. The decision of the Court not only reflects the UN General Assembly's tendentious and one-sided position on the subject, but it also ignores the problem of terrorism. The UN General Assembly's decision to submit the issue of the fence to the International Court of Justice totally ignores Article 36 of the Court's Status which stipulates that contentious issues can only be brought before the Court with the consent of all sides. In this case, not only is the issue at hand clearly contentious, but the parties have already agreed on appropriate mechanisms for resolving such issues between them. The decision is another part of the political campaign waged by the Arabs and their backers in the UN to defame Israel - this time by misusing the International Court of Justice and focusing on the result (the anti-terrorist fence), instead of the cause (Palestinian terrorism). The data on which the ICJ based its ruling was not accurate at the time the ICJ dealt with the issue. The route of the fence was changed several times before the hearings, and new passages were created for the convenience of the local population (as they continue to be today) but the Court ignored this fact. Israel set up a compensation procedure for Palestinians whose lands have been used for the construction of the fence. The Palestinians also have access to Israel’s Supreme Court, and indeed have successfully used their right to appeal to the Court, which in turn imposed the re-routing of the fence upon the Israeli Government. All the vocal dealing with the issue of the fence in the UN apparatus was initiated by the Palestinians in order to divert the international attention from the fact that they did not comply with their commitment to fight terrorism, as explicitly demanded by the Road Map. The ICJ’s ruling denies Israel’s right to protect itself. Clause 139 of the ICJ advisory denied Israel’s right to self defense on the bizarre grounds that Palestinian terror does not constitute an armed attack by a state. The purpose of international law is to punish the aggressive states, safeguard human rights, and protect civilians caught in conflict. Thus, condemning Israel’s self-defense fence based on international law is absurd. ( See background )