In some ways, it is perplexing that conservatives don't roar their support of the World Court's decision condemning Israel's construction of the wall slicing through Palestinian land. Or at least they should support the parts that read like a strong anti-"takings" decision protecting property rights:

Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land, orchards, olive groves and other immovable property seized from any natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate the persons in question for the damage suffered.

This is the most basic statement of required takings compensation doctrine that exists, yet conservatives don't even seem to care. This highlights how unhinged is conservative support for every abuse by the Israeli regime, since they blithefully support actions by Israel that they normally denounce as economic evil.

Of course, the takings compensation portion of the World Court decision is only part of the decision, but the basic idea that the wall will fatally disrupt the economic viability of Palestinians corralled into the remaining portions of the West Bank has been the basic criticism all along. Yes, the Wall is also an international land grab by Israel, but it is its deliberate economic disruption of life for the Palestinians that is most condemned.

In my article, Implications of the ICJ Decision I chose instead, to first of all set out what the court decided, to show it went far beyond declaring the fence illegal. It also declared that the Palestinian people exist, that all settlements are illegal, the Jerusalem is occupied territory and that the UN has a sacred trust to hold all the territories for them.