IV 
108TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. CON. RES. 371
Supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence to prevent Pales-
tinian terrorist attacks and condemning the decision by the United Na-
tions General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice 
to render an opinion on the legality of the security fence. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004
Mr. PENCE (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. CAN-
TOR, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CRANE, Mr. 
CARDOZA, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. 
TIAHRT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. NORWOOD, Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. KELLY, 
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 
WELDON of Florida, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. 
MUSGRAVE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SANDLIN, 
Mr. FROST, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. 
SOUDER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELLER, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, 
Mr. DEMINT, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. HERGER, 
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. JONES 
of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, 
Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GOODE, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. 
FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. HAYWORTH, 
Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. OTTER, 
Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. LINDER, Mr. STEARNS, 
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. NADLER, Mr. 
FERGUSON, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. WYNN, 
Mr. NUNES, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
Supporting the construction by Israel of a security fence 
to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks and condemning
•HCON 371 IH 
the decision by the United Nations General Assembly 
to request the International Court of Justice to render 
an opinion on the legality of the security fence.
Whereas the United Nations General Assembly has requested 
the International Court of Justice to render an opinion 
on the legality of the security fence being constructed by 
Israel to prevent Palestinian terrorists from entering 
Israel; 
Whereas on February 23, 2004, the International Court of 
Justice commenced hearings on the legality of the secu-
rity fence; 
Whereas the question presented to the International Court of 
Justice by the United Nations General Assembly mis-
states the applicable international law and the case re-
garding the construction by Israel of the security fence 
is a political proceeding disguised in legal garb; 
Whereas the security fence is a necessary and proportional 
response to a campaign of terrorism by Palestinians; 
Whereas throughout the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in 
Israel proper, terrorist groups have sent suicide bombers 
to murder Israeli civilians in buses, cafes, and places of 
worship, have used snipers to shoot at Israeli civilians in 
their homes and vehicles and even in baby carriages, and 
have invaded homes and seminaries in order to carry out 
acts of terrorism; 
Whereas a security fence has proved its utility in Gaza, where 
such a fence has existed since 1996, resulting in few 
Gaza residents crossing into Israel to carry out terrorist 
attacks; 
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 
and 338 require negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Pal-
•HCON 371 IH 
estinian conflict, including demarcation of final borders 
and recognition of the right of Israel to ‘‘recognized and 
secure boundaries’’; 
Whereas according to international law and as expressly rec-
ognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, all 
countries possess an inherent right to self-defense; 
Whereas Palestinian terrorists routinely disguise themselves 
as civilians, including as pregnant women, hide bombs in 
ambulances, feign injuries, and sequence bombs to kill 
rescue workers responding to an initial attack; 
Whereas the security fence and associated checkpoints are 
therefore crucial to detecting and deterring terrorists 
among the Palestinian civilian population; 
Whereas there is evidence that the International Court of 
Justice is politicized and hostile towards Israel; 
Whereas an Egyptian judge sitting on the International 
Court of Justice has called for Arab states to sue Israel 
for genocide, and a Jordanian judge sitting on the Court 
was a special rapporteur for the United Nations Human 
Rights Commission who concluded that the Israeli settle-
ments in Gaza and the West Bank are illegal; 
Whereas these two judges have already decided key issues in 
the security fence case and cannot be expected to exam-
ine impartially the evidence presented to the Inter-
national Court of Justice and to apply international law 
fairly; 
Whereas construction of the security fence does not constitute 
annexation of disputed territory because the security 
fence is a temporary measure and does not extend the 
sovereignty of Israel;
•HCON 371 IH 
Whereas the security fence is permitted under the 1993 Dec-
laration of Principles (also known as the Oslo Accords) 
because Israel retained its right to provide for security, 
including the security of Israeli settlers; 
Whereas the up-coming case in the International Court of 
Justice violates the provisions in the Oslo Accords requir-
ing that all disputes between the parties be settled by di-
rect negotiations or by agreed-upon methods; 
Whereas 52 United States citizens have been killed and 83 
United States citizens have been injured by Palestinian 
terrorists since 1993; 
Whereas 934 people of several different nationalities have 
been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since 
September 2000; and 
Whereas the United States, Korea, India, and Botswana have 
security fences to separate themselves from territories or 
other countries: Now, therefore be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That Congress—
(1) supports the construction by Israel of a se-
curity fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks; 
and 
(2) condemns the decision by the United Na-
tions General Assembly to request the International 
Court of Justice to render an opinion on the legality 
of the security fence.
Æ