Europe and the Intl Court of Injustice

[Semsem]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089516103148


Jul. 11, 2004 22:53
Europe and the ICJ


Many things have been and remain to be said about Friday's advisory opinion on Israel's security fence by the 15-member International Court of Justice, most of it having to do with the court's jurisdiction, fitness, and reasoning. How can Israel expect justice from an international tribunal on which no Israeli jurist is eligible to serve? How can we expect it from one on which Egyptian and Jordanian judges do serve? How does the court sidestep the question of the terrorism that created the fence and then render an opinion on the legality of settlements?

But all this is of little point. The court's verdict would have been outrageous if the court were departing from some prior standard of recognized integrity. In this case, everyone knew from the start what the verdict would be, and so it was. From kangaroo courts, kangaroo justice.

More interesting is the question of the political uses to which the verdict will be put. From the lips of Saeb Erekat and his epigones, we already know: as the latest in a list of irrelevant, biased, or tendentiously interpreted UN resolutions, rattled off the tongue at high speed, to create the impression of legal unimpeachability for the Palestinian cause.

In the United States, the Bush administration has dismissed the verdict and promises to veto any Security Council resolution stemming from it. (It was an American judge, Thomas Buergenthal, who cast the sole dissenting vote in the case.) The Kerry campaign agrees.

That leaves Europe. French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier was on record against the fence before the court rendered its verdict. Robin Cook, the former British foreign minister, wasted no time adding his signature, graffiti-style, to a mock security fence in London, alongside the words "illegal under International Law." The Swiss Foreign Ministry received the verdict "with satisfaction."

Slightly more nuanced was a statement from the European Council's Javier Solana. The European Union, he said, is "committed to upholding and developing international law"; at the same time, the EU fears the fence "could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict." He promises to "examine the court's opinion with the utmost attention."

Yet this is problematic. The EU initially opposed having the fence issue referred to the ICJ because it believed it would prejudge future negotiations. Now that the court has done precisely that, however, how does the EU square its commitment to international law with its commitment, as a member of the Quartet, to serve as an honest broker in such negotiations?

The question underlines a broader choice Europe now has before it. Either the EU can play the role of champion and defender of international legality as defined by the United Nations. Or it can pursue Europe's collective interests however it sees fit, preferably not in contravention to international law but neither in scrupulous observance of it.

In the recent past, particularly in the matter of Iraq, the EU has been able to use the international system as a vehicle to advance what were, anyway, its own interests. But Europe has not stopped to ask itself what happens when the interests of the EU don't coincide with judgments of courts such as the ICJ. That's a mistake.

Continued
1 | 2 | Next »



(Continued from page 1)
Right now, the ruling of the ICJ appears as another crisis for Israel. In fact, it is a crisis for Europe. The clear intention of the ICJ ruling is to do to Israel what it helped do to apartheid South Africa in the early 1970s when it ruled the occupation of Namibia illegal and sanctionable.

Europe will have to think carefully about how far it wants to travel down that road vis-a-vis the Jewish state. Is it ready to make good on its anti-fence instincts by voting for UN sanctions, as the ICJ ruling advises? Does Europe place a higher value on Palestinian property than on Jewish lives? The game here is clear. Like adolescents who rely upon parental restrictions they claim to abhor to set limits to behavior they know is irresponsible, Europe is relying upon an American veto to protect the international system from a decision it knows is wrong and should not be implemented.

Israel has made its choice to protect its citizens from terror. Soon Europe will have a choice, too. Whatever choice it makes will be usefully clarifying for the rest of us.

[Semsem]

The fact that Israeli judges are not allowed to serve on this Court of garbage is evidence of racism.

[Justcurious]

"How can Israel expect justice from an international tribunal on which no Israeli jurist is eligible to serve?"

Foolish thinking. If Osama bin Laden is caught, there should be fellow terrorists in the court, if the same logic is followed.

[shamayim]

I think that the major difference between demanding that an Israeli be allowed to sit on the ICJ and demanding that a terrorist sit on the ICJ is the fact that Israel is a sovereign nation, and a UN member, and therefore should have the same rights as other UN members, whereas Osama is not.

However in practice, Israel has been prevented from participation in the UNs various organs of legal and executive powers. Because the of number of Islamic and Arab member nations at the UN, as well as their enormous influence due to their economic and finacial power, Israeli membership on various committees and courts is routinely voted down.

Of course, considering the fact that countries like the Peoples' Republic of China, Libya, Syria, and Iran sit on plenty of committees at the UN, obviously involvement in terrorism does not disqualify you from membership in UN organizations.

Regards,

Shamayim

[shamayim]

Israel's Second-class Status At The UN
Anne Bayefsky - February 18, 2003

Much has been made about the election of Libya -- a state with a notoriously poor human rights record -- to the Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. But few know that the only United Nations member state that is deprived of equal participatory rights at the UN is Israel.

Last week Israel's second-class status at the UN was again demonstrated by the defeat of the Israeli candidate for the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Yehudit Karp is the committee's current rapporteur. In the past, she had been chosen by fellow members as vice-chair and was a seasoned, well-respected committee member.

Her defeat follows the defeat of the Israeli candidate for the election to the UN Human Rights Committee in September 2002; the defeat of the Israeli candidate and sitting member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in August 2002; and the defeat of the Israeli candidate for election to the UN Racial Discrimination Committee in January 2002. In fact, the only remaining elected Israeli on a UN body anywhere is Mayer Gabay, vice-chair of the UN Administrative Tribunal -- whose term ends in December of this year and who is not permitted by general rules concerning time limits to stand for re-election.

By contrast, Egypt has members on all six of the UN human rights treaty bodies. In fact, the Egyptian candidate for the Committee on the Rights of the Child was elected with the highest number of votes by the 191 parties to the Child Convention. This is despite the fact that the leading child rights international NGO (based in Geneva) put out an advisory to countries before the vote. It said: "NGOs feel that she is not very knowledgeable nor reliable on the issues ... due to her strong affiliation and history with the Egyptian government." Translation: When countries of interest to Egypt are considered by the committee, an Egyptian government official sits close to the "independent" Egyptian member just to make sure they get it right.

Israel is also the only UN member state denied membership in any of the UN's five regional groups, which elect UN bodies in Geneva. Elections in the UN are normally based on regional representation or slates prearranged by regional groups. Israel qualifies for membership in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), composed of geographically diverse states including Canada and Australia. But WEOG, driven by states such as France, refuses to admit Israel to its Geneva operations. This has the consequence that Israel cannot be elected to a whole range of UN bodies. For instance, Israel cannot stand for election to WIPO -- the World Intellectual Property Organization. Similarly, Israel is prevented from running for the International Labour Organization's Governing Body.

Lacking UN regional group membership in Geneva means that Israel is the only UN member forced to sit out consultations on draft resolutions and UN Geneva-based business of all kinds. Israel is refused any possibility of participating in the consultations of regional bodies in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development the World Health Organization. The meetings behind closed doors of regional groups at the Commission on Human Rights negotiate the language of resolutions on all subjects without any Israeli participation. In recent years, Sweden and Co. in the European Union have enjoyed negotiating an agreed-upon level of hostility on the myriad anti-Israel resolutions with Arab states on the commission, before Israeli diplomats got a copy of a first draft.

Even Israel's limited participation in the WEOG regional group in New York is circumscribed by the caveat that existing rotation schemes not be disturbed. The result? WEOG membership in the UN Economic and Social Council has already been tied up until 2021.

As for UN staffers, official lists of the UN secretariat from July 2002 count 24 Israelis and 27 from "Palestine."

Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe pass judgment on human rights at the UN Commission on Human Rights. China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates specialize in the rights of women at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Iran is one of five members on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan scrutinize the implementation of labour standards on the Governing Council of the International Labour Organization.

In the meantime, representatives and experts from the democratic and Jewish state of Israel are disqualified, blackballed, or left standing in the halls of UN bodies everywhere.

Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and professor of political science at York University.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/status.html

[shamayim]

Gee-- I wonder why the UN does not have a Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Jewish People?

:confused:

***

Hungary quits pro-Palestinian UN panel
------------------------------------------------
Melissa Radler Jun. 17, 2004
------------------------------------------------

The Hungarian mission to the United Nations received accolades this week from its Israeli counterparts and US Jewish groups for resigning from a UN committee best known for promoting the Palestinian cause and denouncing Israel.

According to the Hungarian mission's counselor on the Middle East, Levente Szekely, Hungary resigned from the UN Committee for the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People ahead of joining the European Union on May 1 in order the align its stance on the conflict with the rest of Europe.

While the 23-member committee adopts resolutions by consensus, Szekely explained, Hungary began abstaining from those same resolutions in General Assembly votes last fall ahead of becoming an EU member. "It's very inconsistent to vote for something [in the committee] and abstain on the same text [in the General Assembly]," Szekely said, adding that the EU position on the committee, which routinely condemns Israeli actions in the territories while remaining silent on Palestinian violence, "is that it's not really helping the peace process."

An official at Israel's UN mission, however, said that Hungary's resignation from the committee, which he described as "probably the most anti-Israel body at the UN," was the result of Israeli pressure. "We are talking to countries and urging them to resign from the committee," said Israel's deputy permanent representative, Ambassador Arye Mekel. Two additional EU nations, Malta and Cyprus, remain on the committee, as are several former Soviet bloc states, including Romania, Ukraine and Belarus.

"We're telling them that there's no reason for them to be on the committee now that there's no Soviet bloc anymore," Mekel said. He said he hopes that Hungary's resignation, the first in the committee's 29-year history, will inspire a "domino effect that will bring about the resignation of others."

Hungary coupled its resignation from the committee with a pledge to increase funding to Palestinian refugees, Szekely said, and "so far, thank God, there are not emotional reactions from the Arab world." The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee publicly lauded Hungary this week for its move, and the reaction from Israel's UN mission, Szekely said, is "definitely positive."

He said that Hungary tried unsuccessfully to convince Malta and Cyprus to resign in the name of EU unity. "We shall see next fall how will they vote [in the General Assembly] because they are in the same awkward situation," Szekely said.
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087441299597&p=1078113566627
---------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995-2004 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

[Mediocrates]

This is all rather silly. If the UN decided tomorrow that all Jews are really space aliens we would be hearing polemics in the press over whether to take it seriously or not and how it reflects on the Islamic psyche.

[Gilgamesh]

"How can Israel expect justice from an international tribunal on which no Israeli jurist is eligible to serve?"

Foolish thinking. If Osama bin Laden is caught, there should be fellow terrorists in the court, if the same logic is followed.

Hmmm... You equate Israel with terrorists. What a grand idea. Terrorists murder innocents women and children. Does that mean Israel carpet bomb Arabs? Does that mean we Jews are allowed, morally, to bomb Arab cafes and buses? (Since we're already "terrorists"... what can we lose other then the Arabs? ).

[Gilgamesh]

This is all rather silly. If the UN decided tomorrow that all Jews are really space aliens we would be hearing polemics in the press over whether to take it seriously or not and how it reflects on the Islamic psyche.

Right!

The idea of universal and absolute justice mean that some human made laws and human made "legal procedures" and "court sentences" maybe compaletly unjust. The ICJ last anti semetic assult, is last one of such example.

Israel's feelings are hurt, but nothing more then that. The ICJ, on the other hand, had just jumped over a bridge, posioned and shot himself all at once. Pity, now the ICJ has NO credability what so ever, for the few decades to come. Another nail in the UN coffin.

I hope Israel will cede from the UN and save the Israeli tax payer few million US$ a year.

[Justcurious]

Hmmm... You equate Israel with terrorists. What a grand idea. Terrorists murder innocents women and children. Does that mean Israel carpet bomb Arabs? Does that mean we Jews are allowed, morally, to bomb Arab cafes and buses? (Since we're already "terrorists"... what can we lose other then the Arabs? ).

No, don't you see what the question is all about? I am speaking of the same principle only.

[ibrodsky]

"How can Israel expect justice from an international tribunal on which no Israeli jurist is eligible to serve?"

Foolish thinking. If Osama bin Laden is caught, there should be fellow terrorists in the court, if the same logic is followed.

Note that the issue raised is why no Israeli jurists are allowed to serve on the ICJ in general--not whether Israeli and Arab jurists should recuse themselves with regard to this specific question.

Thus, in your twisted mind any Israeli jurist, whether they support the fence, oppose the fence, or are undecided, are automatically disqualified from serving on the ICJ. Because in your mind all Israelis are criminals.

You are a racist.

[Gilgamesh]

No, don't you see what the question is all about? I am speaking of the same principle only.

You talk about one not being his own judge. I agree, but this wasn't an issue. Israel, sensing the ICJ is nothing but a puppet show, chose not to be represented, not even represented among the judging panel, which was our right. But then, the puppet show called the ICJ cannot and must not declare itself "just" and not even "balanced".

You Europeans just can't seperate the UN label from reality of a true sence of justice. Replacing free choise and free thinking with idole worshiping. This time, the idole is called the UN.

Then again. Perhaps it takes thousands of years of civilization evolution to develop advanced way of thinking. Probabley this is the very object that definee you Europeans as barbarians still. Under developed civilization.

[Justcurious]

Gil, if one single party (Israel) doesn't accept the ICJ, while dozens of others do, what would you suggest in place? If Israel was the decisive party, isn't there a small danger that one or two of the countless other parties disagree?

Ibrodsky, you call names, just like some Arabs do!

[Ahava]

Gil, if one single party (Israel) doesn't accept the ICJ, while dozens of others do, what would you suggest in place?

All democracies advised the Court beforehand to not take up this case because it's not a juridical, but a political matter.

[ibrodsky]

Gil, if one single party (Israel) doesn't accept the ICJ, while dozens of others do, what would you suggest in place? If Israel was the decisive party, isn't there a small danger that one or two of the countless other parties disagree?

Ibrodsky, you call names, just like some Arabs do!

You accuse me of name calling, but you asserted that allowing Israeli jurists to participate on the ICJ would be like allowing Al Qaeda terrorists to participate.

This was a clearly racist assertion on your part, whether or not you admit it or are even conscious of it, because you judged all Israelis unfit for service on the ICJ regardless of individual qualifications.

Plus, you haven't suggested that Arab jurists from countries such as Egypt be disqualified, despite the fact that Egypt has fought multiple wars with Israel. Thus, you seem to think that all Israelis are hopelessly blinded, while Arabs must be judged one-by-one.

"Name calling" is when someone calls another participant names without substantiation for the purpose of discrediting that participant in advance of anything they might say. However, if (for example) someone presents false information with the intent of misleading others, and this can be shown, the person is lying and may be called a liar.

In this case, you presented a racist argument. You've offered no defense for suggesting that all Israeli jurists are on a par with terrorists. I suspect that you sincerely believe you are not a racist. Hopefully, now that I have shown that you are a racist you will begin to re-evaluate your biased, mean-spirited, and unfair attitudes toward Israelis.

[Gilgamesh]

Gil, if one single party (Israel) doesn't accept the ICJ, while dozens of others do, what would you suggest in place? I suggest justice, you primitive sod. Justice, the real thing, is not dependent on the number of people or parties supporting it. The justice is one and the same, in Jerusalem as in Sadom, even if the whole world is against justice, it doesn't inflict the defenition or quality of justice. The whole world can be wrong curropt and injust, justice is not defined by peers.

BTW, there are no jury in Israeli courts.

I want terror to stop and all terrorist brought to justice or killed, if they refuse to meet justice. No international "human right" body ever suggested that. No "humanitarian" European goverment ever suggested to put Arafat on trail for crimes against humanity and genocides of Lebanese Christians, in countless massacres in Lebanon all along the 70's and aspecialy since 75, till ISRAEL and SHARON put a stop on it in 82.

If Israel was the decisive party, isn't there a small danger that one or two of the countless other parties disagree? Thats rich! An agreement on the outcome of a trail needed before the court decisides what justice is!!! .

Bottom line, Israel, is the ONLY desicive power, anyway. You can chat as much and as load as you want in Europe. We don't care, we don't hear you. We ignore you. Get that! For us, you are nothing but stinky air.

Ibrodsky, you call names, just like some Arabs do! I am sure Ibrodsky also breath air and eats food and even drinks coffee! Arabs do that too! A Nazis, and convicted killers on death row! What the heck one has to do with the other?

As far as I know Ibrodsky, and you, you earn what ever is hurled at your way. You'll be banned soon. At least I hope so.

[Gilgamesh]

No, don't you see what the question is all about? I am speaking of the same principle only.
Yet you equate Israel with terrorists.
Even the worst accused got a defence, without it, the trail can't be considered "fair".

Israel sensed the court is nothing but a puppot show. A lost battle of total insignificanse. So Israel is not represented in any way. Is this a fair trail?

Only a debate among Arabs and international judges as loudspeekers of Arab propaganda.

[Mediocrates]

Here is the list of ICJ decisions since 1946. The ICJ more often than not concerns itself with issues of compensation vis a vis property where there is some dispute between nations, as well as issues of asylum and specific arrest warrants for leaders, fishing rights, and issues of no real consequence such as Antarctica. It also rules on specific points of the charter and organization of the UN itself.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm

[Mediocrates]

This by the way is the salient point in the ICJ decision

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

"Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - 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."

What it amounts to is that Israel's fence is illegal because the West Bank is not a country. That's basically it for the most part.

[Gilgamesh]

This by the way is the salient point in the ICJ decision

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

"Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - 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."

What it amounts to is that Israel's fence is illegal because the West Bank is not a country. That's basically it for the most part.

There is a deeper contradiction.
The PA is not a "foreign country" yet the fence is not built on "terrotory israel excersizes control". In other words, the PA is sovereign only on matters and aspects that suite itself most.

In other words, it's a joke.

[Mediocrates]

Well yes, I thought that was clear. Moreover it gives a platform to the lie that therefore the ICJ is fit to rule on internal matters, domestic issues and all the countries of the world should therefore demolish all their courts subject themselves to whatever the ICJ has to say about all those issues as well.

Though I imagine that most Americans [and others] have a hard time understanding a court that is not actually bound by precident. That is, the ICJ doesn't build on case law. It merely rules quasi-constitutional issues against its own UN charter. Today they could say the earth is flat. Tomorrow they could say its a pyramid. The next day they could say the earth is made of cotton candy. There are no contradictions in any of those positions from the vantage of the ICJ. That's why I've been saying what I've been saying for years; the ICJ is a complete waste of time and effort.

I does not decide on justice or even laws - it only exists to measure compliance of UN member states with the UN charter. That's all it does.

[Binyamin]

There is a deeper contradiction.
The PA is not a "foreign country" yet the fence is not built on "terrotory israel excersizes control". In other words, the PA is sovereign only on matters and aspects that suite itself most.

In other words, it's a joke.
Another contradiction-
in paragraph 94 the court wrote The Court would recall that, according to customary international law as expressed in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

(paragraph 101)
In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.

When they reached article 51, however, they blatantly ignore its intentions, and its wording:139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self‑defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

[Justcurious]

Yet you equate Israel with terrorists. ...

Foolish thinking, again. Why don't you try to understand that an impartial court takes both parties' opinions into account? Surely, Israel has a good case to defend itself, but why don't you allow the other party also to defend itself. Terrorists or not, they are the other party, aren't they?

[Gilgamesh]

Foolish thinking, again. Why don't you try to understand that an impartial court takes both parties' opinions into account? Surely, Israel has a good case to defend itself, but why don't you allow the other party also to defend itself. Terrorists or not, they are the other party, aren't they?

Sure! Terrorist should defend themselves on their trail on their violation of human rights and crimes against humanity. No other place but that. Why don't you try to understand that?

[Justcurious]

Sure! Terrorist should defend themselves on their trail on their violation of human rights and crimes against humanity. No other place but that. Why don't you try to understand that?

Nobody accepts terrorism, but even the worst terrorists must have access to a fair court. Understand?

Mediocrates: "Though I imagine that most Americans [and others] have a hard time understanding a court that is not actually bound by precident. That is, the ICJ doesn't build on case law. It merely rules quasi-constitutional issues against its own UN charter. Today they could say the earth is flat. Tomorrow they could say its a pyramid. The next day they could say the earth is made of cotton candy. There are no contradictions in any of those positions from the vantage of the ICJ. That's why I've been saying what I've been saying for years; the ICJ is a complete waste of time and effort."

What would you put in its place? Anything solely dependant on Israel would not be acceptable, of course.

[Mediocrates]

I believe 'international law' is a political weapon and as such I see no specific need for it. Deliberative bodies are fine to surface issues and gain consensus about what to do about them but 'legalizing' these political issues is worse than counterproductive.

[Gilgamesh]

Nobody accepts terrorism, but even the worst terrorists must have access to a fair court. Understand? Are you just saying that terrorists accused of crimes against humanity in a court, is not a fair trail? Why? Because the terrorists are all Arabs, and as such they deserve a different kind of legal treatment, different then ordinary human beings?

Arab terrorists will defend themselves in a court of justice, facing charges agains of crimes against humanity mass murder and violation of human rights.

What would you put in its place? Anything solely dependant on Israel would not be acceptable, of course. Why? We Jews only invented the very idea of justice absolute and universal. How can our courts be "relaible" in judging Arab terrorists? We just might find them guilty!!! How absured, right? Terrorists find accounted for their evil deeds... :rolleyes:

Israel tries Arab terrorists in a court of justice day in and day out. They usually get what they deserve. (although, 20 pluse accumulated life imprisoned is too few a punishment, in my view).

[Justcurious]

Gil, anyone how wants to follow this discussion is advised to read your previous post and draw conclusions from that.

[Gilgamesh]

Gil, anyone how wants to follow this discussion is advised to read your previous post and draw conclusions from that.
Amazing discovery! I am totally overhelmed by your amanced intelect and razor sharp oveservation of yours. How could any of us think of it before??!! Reading the previous posts! How revolutionary! :rolleyes: (For your attention only: the emicon means sarcastic talk. I don't realy mean what I say, but exactly the opposite).

[Binyamin]

What would you put in its place? Anything solely dependant on Israel would not be acceptable, of course.
You are arguing that the court is holy. By its position, and by definition, we must accept its ruling, because that is the position of a court.

In the absence of any other information, you are right. A court should be assumed to be just and impartial, and respecting the court would be a very important element in a just society.

But here we have other information. We can show that the court is biased. We can point to contradictions in what they said. We can see that there interpretations lead to an impossible conclusion. (They essentially legitimized total disregard for international law and standards for non-governmental bodies.)

After these points have been brought up, they must be answered. They cannot be avoided by saying, "Well, if thats what the Holy court said, who are we to ask?" With such an attitude, the entire Western world would still be completely controlled by the Catholic Church.



You ask what we can have instaed. As you are saying, an international court is theortically a good idea. But when we see that it results in a total miscarriage of justice, we must move on without it. We can survive without it. (With it, otoh, is not so clear. Definately not a right that we have!)

[Gilgamesh]

What would you put in its place? Anything solely dependant on Israel would not be acceptable, of course.

You suggest that Israel, being a "party", has an interest in stopping terrorism and thus, wants terrorists to be tried and face justice. Meaning, Isael, being a party, is "biased" against terrorism.

So what you suggest, is a court, which is "not biased, impartial", European that can may see the reason and justification for terrorism, aspecialy the kind that is directed at Jewish children from Islamist supremist ideology.

How can a human been, be indeferent of impartial toward the full intent cold murder of 3 and 5 years old Jewish children? In point blanck?

I am sure, justcurious, that as an anti semetic racist Euro-trash you are, you can be "balaced, impartial and non biased" toward the mass murder of Jews. After all, as European you have long history and deep traditions about that, some of those very recent.

Comeing to think of it, as an old creature you are, you might have been a real SS back then. Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany, and Finns did volenteered to the SS... (just like many Dutch, Nords, Danes and many others). But then again, I think that you won't confirm of deny this.

[Justcurious]

...

You ask what we can have instaed. As you are saying, an international court is theortically a good idea. But when we see that it results in a total miscarriage of justice, we must move on without it. We can survive without it. (With it, otoh, is not so clear. Definately not a right that we have!)

One party's opinion is undoubtedly different from the verdict. It seldom pleases the guilty. I might find many of its decisions "wrong", but I have to accept them. Right or wrong. Israel must accept this fact also.

Or devise some other international court which would be acceptable to both Israel and all the other parties. Which, of course, is easier said than done.

[Mediocrates]

You would need a change of venue and sadly, earth is the only planet we have. See the fact is that "Israel" is more than a country. It's a name for the conflict of the middle east versus the world. There are no unbiased parties and it's silly to look for them. This is the great failure of the UN since it was formed. Its charter believes that everyone acts first in everyone else's best interest first which of course is lunacy. Everyone acts with their own agendas and the agendas of their allies first and screw everyone else. A court made up from that talent pool will simply reflect that. There are about 66 arab and/or islamic countries that call themselves 'nonaligned' but in fact vote speak and act as a single entity for the most part. That's between a quarter and a third of the total membership. Add to that the EU states who typically vote against Israel (they're the ones who 'did' a survey that concluded that what? 99% of the world thinks Israel is the most dangerous country in the known universe?, whew at least they're unbiased) and you have about half of the countries in the UN which automatically go against Israel on any issue, no matter how large or small.

So unless you uncover Atlantis long lost under the Antarctic freeze you're not going to find anyone other than the usual lynchmob.

[Binyamin]

One party's opinion is undoubtedly different from the verdict. It seldom pleases the guilty. I might find many of its decisions "wrong", but I have to accept them. Right or wrong. Israel must accept this fact also.

Or devise some other international court which would be acceptable to both Israel and all the other parties. Which, of course, is easier said than done. Or civilization can continue without an international court, just as we managed for the last couple thousand years.

This is not an issue of liking or not liking the decision. Some very serious points have been raised showing that the decision was biased and logically unsound. Unless these points can be answered, it is very difficult, and unreasonable, to defend the sanctity of the court.



e.g., my post earlier about an apparent contradiction in intrepreting laws as they were intended. Such problems must be addressed. If you can explain to me why there is no contradiction there I would accept it, as much as I would still be unhappy with their conclusion.

[Gilgamesh]

One party's opinion is undoubtedly different from the verdict. It seldom pleases the guilty. I might find many of its decisions "wrong", but I have to accept them. Right or wrong. Israel must accept this fact also. Israel accepts only it's own conscience, our own justice and our own G-d. You under developed civilizations will catch up with us, 2-3 thousands years from now. Give or take five centuries or so.

A law or a court sentance must reflect justice or at least some logic. Or else, it's oppression in the name of a law. The worst crimes in human history, were made under the protective cloack of a law. A law is man made, it has no value no reason, unless it's made to make justice and correct wrongs.

Last, a law needs enforcement. One can make any law he wishes, proclaime any sentance he wants, while sitting on this bathroom throne. What good does it make? Nothing! The UN has no teeth, or else Israel have long been eradicated, and some other poor country would be next on the UN line of torture. What meaning does any verdict mean, without a power to enforce it's rulling?

Bottom line, is always the IDF. Half a million armed Jews, with a thousand warplanes, 20 missile boats, 4,000 modern tanks, and estimated 5,000 artilary barrles, all fighiting like desperados. In time of grave danger, a million men more will march from all over the world to our assitance. We have allies their names you never heard of before. Will you fight us to enforce your stupid rulling? Will any one place sanctions of any kind, Israel won't by pass or get stronger as a result (all Israel economy was created and evolved as a result of former sanctions). How much money will Europe lose, in direct and indirect result of thier sanctions?

The stupid JIC court has no power, no teeth, no significanse, no collaboration from any other counrty in the world. Israel is stronger, much stronger then you dare imagion. Europe insisted, needed Israeli technology to produce the Galileo European GPS program. days following the ICJ rulling, Israel signed all the paralimitaries papers. According to our press, the essence of the Galileo project, it's electronic soul, will be entirely Israeli. So, what sanctions are we talking about?

Or devise some other international court which would be acceptable to both Israel and all the other parties. Which, of course, is easier said than done.

Why do we need an international court? What good does it do?

[Justcurious]

...

This is not an issue of liking or not liking the decision. Some very serious points have been raised showing that the decision was biased and logically unsound. Unless these points can be answered, it is very difficult, and unreasonable, to defend the sanctity of the court.

Exactly, this is what is needed. A court that is acceptable both to the Israelis and to whoever is in favour of the other opinion.

[minusthejihad]

Thats the whole problem in a nutshell:

Israel is not acceptable to anyone who shares the other opinion.

[Gilgamesh]

Exactly, this is what is needed. A court that is acceptable both to the Israelis and to whoever is in favour of the other opinion.

When the issue is terrorism, and terrorism means murdered Jewish children, what exactly, "other opinion" means?

When the fence is the least of all meaningful possible actions against terrorism, and that get dumpt by teethless international debate club, what does that suppose to mean about the UN and its establishments?

The fence stops terrorism, that what the court hates. That why we ignore them.

You see, the UN shot his own paw off, with the poisoned claws and infernal carvings included. Now, the UN has lost all trust and all credability among Israelis and Jews all over the world. Is this a better possition for the UN?

One bright day, israel will just pull out it UN ambassador and ban all UN personel from entering the borders of Israel. Do you know how many UN jobs will be lost? How deep will EU espionage in Israel will be hurt? And you know what would happen next? More countries who are fed up with UN attitude will follow Israel's lead and cede. Then you'll be all alone, you, the Europeans and the Arabs. You'll rename the UN into the "International Anti Zionist fence toothless debate club", as "how to make Israel disappear by publishing reports no one believe in" will be the only legal topic in your future UN.

[Semsem]

That European guy Just Curious from Northern Europe has the gall to compare Jews to Bin Laden?

[Semsem]

<<Right or wrong. Israel must accept this fact also.<<

We Jews never accepted antisemitic verdicts from the Nazi German Courts. So we will not accept any antisemitic verdicts from these primitive Judges from primitive countries. The 5 European judges on the ICJ came from:

Germany a country that 60 years ago murdered 50% of our people. The opinion of the bigoted German Judge is null and void.
France, a country that murdered 70,000 Jews and tried to murder 300,000 Moroccan Jews. The verdict of the French Judge is null and void.
Slovakia: A country that collaborated with Nazi Germany and murdered all of it's Jews.
Netherlands: a country that distorted history by lying that it had tried to save it's Jews. And let us remember that the Queen of Holland complained in 1938 that there were Jewish refugees living too close to the Royal Palace. She had them shipped to the Westebrook refugee camp.
Great Britain: a country that refused to allow Jews to emigrate to Palestine after 1938 with the White Paper and indirectly murdered Jews whose lives could have been saved.

Screw the Intl Court of Garbage and Screw the EU and Europe.

[Justcurious]

When the issue is terrorism, and terrorism means murdered Jewish children, what exactly, "other opinion" means?


Well, your Arab neighbours are much closer to you. Why not ask them? I understand that there are disputes about the fence making it more difficult to go to work and, earlier, Israel using most of the fresh water, Israel building settlements in Arab-owned areas, etc.

Terrorism is not acceptable in any form, of course.

Semsem, you mention several countries. According to the same logic, all the citizens of those countries are bank robbers, sexual perverts etc., if some of them have done something similar in the past. Do you also name all Israelis according to what one or two of them have done?

[Gilgamesh]

Well, your Arab neighbours are much closer to you. Why not ask them? I don't need to, I read their papers, see their TV, and believe me there are quite a few Arabs (Badawin and Druz) who serve with me in the Army reserve duty, and update me about everything our media will never write about. I have friends (Jews), and my own sister, are fluent in Arabic, who tell me all about the things the Badawins skipped. I know, and like me alot other Israelis EXACTLY what the Arab are thinking. And in many posts around here, we update every body else.

You can check things up yourself in memri (http://www.memri.org) and [url=http://www.ict.org.il[/url]

I understand that there are disputes about the fence making it more difficult to go to work and, earlier, Israel using most of the fresh water, Israel building settlements in Arab-owned areas, etc. Cheap Arab propaganda. You have to come here and see the truth in your own eyes.

Arabs don't have to work in Israel. They can work any where else. Their employment is not Israel's responsibility. The Fresh water thing... Well, people can't survive without water, yet the Arabs doubled their population 3 times over, since 67. So reality, work a little different then Arab complaints.

Israel uses as much of our own water as we see need. Arabs poison their own water sources with over use and polution. And then complain about us Jews. Pity. Arabs do not have shortage of water, but shoratage of simple menagement. Tibal politics forbid meaningful development in Arab countires all over the Arab world. Each road constraction causes majore riots everywhere where there are Arabs.

Terrorism is not acceptable in any form, of course. Cool. What do you offer for us to do, other then self defence?

Semsem, you mention several countries. According to the same logic, all the citizens of those countries are bank robbers, sexual perverts etc., if some of them have done something similar in the past. Do you also name all Israelis according to what one or two of them have done? The judges are like ambassadors of some kind, represent the criminal goverments that sent them.

[WissNX01]

Isreal has every right to build as big a wall as they want. Who cares about the World Court or the UNs opinion. Sharons job is to protect his people, not play games with Arafat and his band of killers.

[WissNX01]

The other Arabs are probably pissed that they didnt think of a wall first to squeeze Isreal off from the region. Even if they had, Isreal is right next to the sea, and actually has an economy that allows it to have a modern airport.

[Semsem]

[Semsem, you mention several countries. According to the same logic, all the citizens of those countries are bank robbers, sexual perverts etc., if some of them have done something similar in the past. Do you also name all Israelis according to what one or two of them have done?>>

Stop trying to brush off the crimes the primitive European barbarians committed on the Jewish people for 2,000 years. We don't need to be preached by the immoral children and grandchildren of the criminals who persecuted us for 2,000 years.

[WissNX01]

[Semsem, you mention several countries. According to the same logic, all the citizens of those countries are bank robbers, sexual perverts etc., if some of them have done something similar in the past. Do you also name all Israelis according to what one or two of them have done?>>

Stop trying to brush off the crimes the primitive European barbarians committed on the Jewish people for 2,000 years. We don't need to be preached by the immoral children and grandchildren of the criminals who persecuted us for 2,000 years.

Oh yeah, Europe is still a huge stonghold of anti Semetism Those rat bastards like the French and the Nazi Germans dont need additional defense.