"the fact remains that the court exceeded its authority by assuming a-priori that it knew where the border is which can only be decided today by a bilateral agreement between Israel and the PA." A couple of points of order here: 1) The court itself examined its jurisdictional and authoritative limits, and it says that you are quite wrong. 2) You are wrong about the current state of borders; the border between Israeli and non-Israeli land IS known. It's the Green Line. The bilateral agreement YOU hypothesise would be an agreement to MOVE the existing line separating Israeli from non-Israeli land. Which means you have it backwards - you claim the ICJ is prejudicing the outcome of those talks (Israel tried that same claim in a submission - the ICJ rejected it), whereas the ICJ is adament that it is the *WALL* that attempts to prejudice those talks. The ICJ opinion reads a lot more like reality than your opinion.
from the article: The hot-air summit