Contempt for racist Intl Court of Injustice

[Semsem]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1089441979154

Jul. 11, 2004 0:45 | Updated Jul. 11, 2004 0:50
Israel follows its own law, not bigoted Hague decision
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Advertisement


The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision regarding the security fence.

After all, the Supreme Court is a creation of the Knesset and is therefore representative of all of the people – Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. Moreover, the Supreme Court has a real stake in both sides of the fence dispute. Its job is to balance the security needs of its citizens against the humanitarian concerns of West Bank Palestinians. It tried to strike that balance by upholding the concept of a security fence while insisting that the Israeli military authorities give due weight to the needs of the Palestinians, even if that requires some compromise on the security of Israelis.

Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law. Virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny. Israel owes the International Court absolutely no deference. It is under neither a moral nor a legal obligation to give any weight to its predetermined decision.

The Supreme Court of Israel recognized the unquestionable reality that the security fence has saved numerous lives and promises to save more, but it also recognized that this benefit must be weighed against the material disadvantages to West Bank Palestinians. The International Court, on the other hand, discounted the saving of lives and focused only on the Palestinian interests. By showing its preference for Palestinian property rights over the lives of Jews, the International Court displayed its bigotry.

The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court – indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs.

A judicial decision can have no legitimacy when rendered against a nation that is willfully excluded from the court's membership by bigotry.

Just as the world should have disregarded any decision against blacks rendered by a Mississippi court in the 1930s, so too should all decent people contemptuously disregard the bigoted decisions of the International Court of Justice when it comes to Israel. To give any credence to the decisions of that court is to legitimize bigotry.

The International Court of Justice should be a court of last resort to which aggrieved litigants can appeal when their own country's domestic courts are closed to them. The Israeli Supreme Court is not only open to all Israeli Arabs, but also to all West Bank and Gaza Arabs. Israel's Supreme Court is the only court in the Middle East where an Arab can actually win a case against his government.

Continued
1 | 2 | Next »


Continued from page 1)
The decision of the International Court of Justice against Israel should harm the reputation of that court in the minds of objective observers rather than damage the credibility of Israel. The Israeli government will comply with the rule of law by following the decision of its own Supreme Court.

If the International Court of Justice were itself to apply the rule of law instead of the calculus of politics, it might deserve respect. Now – like the general assembly of which it's a creation and the Mississippi courts of the 1930s of which it's a clone – all it deserves is the contempt of decent people for its bigoted processes and its predetermined partisan result.

Prof. Dershowitz wrote this article the day before the International Court rendered this opinion because he was certain – based on the composition of the court – that its verdict would be against Israel. Following the decision he did not have to change a single word.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

[drexpert]

My suggestion to satisfy the liberal community is to invite Christo the umbrella artist to put a Jewish art project along the wall.

This should remove a lot of complaints, because now the wall is just ART!

And anything can be done with art!

Jeffrey

[Mediocrates]

They should paint in letters 5 stories high on the arab side of the wall

BANG YOUR HEAD AGAINST THIS MONUMENT TO YOUR ABSOLUTE FAILURE

[drexpert]

What if Israel mirrored the Arab side. It would literally double their territory!

[Elisheba]

Only when barbed wire fences were put up around Jews was the world's evil finally satisfied. That will never happen again, despite the fantasies of the UN, France, The International Court in The Hague and the Arab/Muslim world.

When Israel defends itself militarily, it is called occupation. When Israel protects its citizenry, it is called aggressive. When Israel erects a fence to keep terrorists from blowing up Jewish babies in pizza parlors, it is called apartheid. The International Court of Justice has a problem with Jews who escaped being gassed in Auschwitz.

No wonder. The Court's president, Shi Jiuyong of China represents a despicable Communist government that jails people who dare say, "I disagree." Judge Shi recently delivered an address on the occasion of a visit by the head of the Swiss Federation praising Switzerland's long history of "neutrality and justice (sic)." Correct, that is Switzerland, a country that could not make up its mind during WWII between the morality of Hitler or Churchill. Neutral my tuches. The Swiss gave aid and support to the Nazis.

Other stars on this World Court include Judge Bruno Simma, born in the midst of Nazi Germany. Imagine the values he learned from his parents and former SS neighbors; Awn Shawkut Al-Khasawneh, a Jordanian who attended the Islamic Educational College in Aman where non-Muslims are guilty, even if proven innocent. And of course, we have Nabil Elaraby, an Egyptian judge which is in itself an oxymoron. What kind of justice can you possibly uphold if you were schooled within a fundamentalist dictatorship?

So there you have just some of the cast of characters. "Saturday Night Live" could not possibly have assembled a more incompetent group of buffoons to make worldly moral decisions. And their sister organization, the massage parlor located on First Avenue more commonly referred to as the United Nations has not faired much better.

There are 58 Muslim nations, totally embarrassed that there is one tiny democratic Jewish state with 5 million people, stronger and more successful than all 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. With honor being the most important value and shame being the most despised in Islamic societies, those "brave warriors" have finally realized that they cannot defeat Israel or America in any military endeavor or civilizational accomplishment. Therefore, Arabs and Muslims have developed a totally new strategy which many of the remaining leftist/socialist nations embrace, selfishly fearing their own 9/11 for non-support.

It is no wonder Israel is hated. How do you explain to Muslim children that Israelis can wear attractive bathing suits at a beach, have a boyfriend or girlfriend of their choice, watch MTV and surf the Internet? How do you explain that some of the best hospitals and most important technological breakthroughs are coming out of Israel, while you have to marry your father's choice, wear a burka or wash dishes in a primitive household for the rest of your life?

Why the uproar over a security barrier which at some point could be taken down? It offends both Arab and Muslim honor that all Israel needs is a fence to keep those "great warriors" away. The Palestinians are insulted that concrete slabs and metal wire can prevent macho terrorists from blowing up school children on buses.

However, when they fight with actual weaponry, Arik Sharon winds up surrounding the 200,000 strong Egyptian Third Army, who surrender in tears to a few thousand Yeshiva boys. Talk about offending macho Arab/Muslim honor.

Therefore, because Israel has an undefeatable "offense," the Arab "offense" had to change from physical to verbal, leaving Israel to use merely "a fence." Using lies and inappropriate language such as occupation, colonialism, imperialism, Nazi-like, land grab and freedom fighter, are all attempts at showing that the little "fence" is not a fair "offense." The Palestinians cry like infants at the UN, itself a rather infantile organization, most of whose members have verbal diarrhea.

The politically right-leaning, almost fascistic Arab world has adopted the philosophy of the Western world's Left by shifting blame away from the individual, and holding "inanimate objects" responsible for their problems and deficiencies. The Left in America and throughout much of the world does not assume personal responsibility. Instead, they blame societal violence on television movies, out of wedlock births on lack of condoms, the large increase in the prison population on poverty (lack of money) and increasing murder rates on guns. The Islamic world has learned well from this strategy and now blames " a fence" for all their troubles.

The only fence that should be dismantled is the one around the UN, running from 42nd to 48th streets, and eventually turning that vile building into a much more useful homeless shelter. The General Assembly has once again shown its true colors and proven that the only nations with a moral backbone besides the United States are Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Get out a map, because those are indeed the only countries worth a visit!


By Irwin N. Graulich, who can be reached at irwin.graulich@verizon.net

[shamayim]

It seems to me that there is a very simple reason for Palestinian hostility to the wall. The fencing off of the Gaza strip severely reduced the ability of the operational units of Fatah (like the Al Aksa Matyrs' Brigades) and Hamas to infiltrate into Israel and commit terrorist attacks. While the wall in the West Bank will not absolutely protect Israelis from such attacks (especially after the recent folly of submitting to the Israeli Supreme Court's decision), it will further hamper the operations of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

From the Palestinian leadership's point of view, such attacks comprise one of their main methods to implement the destruction Israel. They view such attacks as being absolutely necessary. After all:

Both the Palestinian National Covenant of the PLO and Hamas' charter demand the destruction of Israel through armed struggle. They have also drilled into the head of the common Palestinian that Israel is an illegitimate entity and that Jews are evil. Palestinian nationality has been defined in terms opposition to, and the hatred of, Israel; to be loyal to the Palestinian covenant means to work towards Israel's destuction. Also, in Arab society, blood demands blood. Regardless of who starts an act of violence or who is in the wrong, honour demands that the death of one of your own must be redressed, especially if the killer is an infidel. So the PLO and Hamas must be seen to maintain the struggle and strike meaningful blows against Israel, or they will lose the confidence of the people whom they represent. What use are 50 years of blood, misery and sacrifice if the people can not see any concrete results from them?

The attacks boost public morale. Polls consistently show that a majority of Palestinians approve of the armed struggle, and even of "suicide" bombings. When bombs explode in Haifa, celebrations break out in Ramallah. Steets and soccer teams are named after "martyrs". Successful terrorist attacks are one of the few joys in current Palestinian society.

The attacks force Israel to retaliate. This of course results in numerous gains in terms of propaganda-- international condemnation of Israel, news footage that can be usually manipulated to the PLO's advantage, and further diplomatic and economic isolation of Israel.

The attacks cause direct damage to Israel's economy, and forces Israel to drain her further economic resources in defending and retaliating against attacks.

And finally, the attacks kill Israelis, an end in of itself.

At the current time, sending infiltrators from the West Bank into Israel to commit bombings and other acts of terror is relatively inexpensive and requires minimal training. If the wall goes up, the Palestinians will have to find more sophisticated methods of infiltrating Israel (like tunneling into Israel, smuggling weapons and explosives through more formidable security checkpoints, or recruiting Israeli residents to commit attacks), or they will have to resort to more expensive, vulnerable, and less accurate weapons like mortars and surface to surface missiles. More resources in terms of money, weapons and training of personnel will have to be put into the war against Israel.

If you are planning to murder someone, you would naturally prefer that your victim not wear body armour-- you might still kill him, but the armour reduces the number of parts on his body that are vulnerable.

***

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority has skillfully turned to wall issue to its advantage. The recent International Court of Justice decision against Israel is an important victory for the Palestinians, and a serious reversal for Israel. The court has arbitrarily defined Israel's borders in the eyes of the "international community", rather than leaving the status of those borders open to negotiation-- thus stripping Israel of any real bargaining power. It has essentially given to the Palestinians the "moral high ground"-- it has told Israel that its attempts to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN Charter are "illegal", because the attacks are by "non-state actors" as opposed to "state actors" (even though there is no such distinction in Article 51-- it simply gives any UN member the right of self-defense), and has tacitly told the Palestinians that their attacks against Israel are "legal". Essentially the ICJ and the UN have become weapons in implementing the PLO's phased plan of 1974.

The Palestinians can now further the diplomatic and economic part of their war against Israel.

Already there is a strong movement to divest from Israel on university campuses and other bastions of the left. This court decision will move the sanctions strategy into the UN General Assembly itself. Even if the resulting resolutions are non-binding or vetoed by the United States (and I suspect that if John Kerry wins the US elections we will see a lot of abstentions from the US rather than vetoes at the UN, and a lot more calls for Israel to show "restraint" from the White House), member nations (especially the Europeans) will now have an excuse to do what they have always wanted to do-- divest from Israel, and reap the economic rewards that the Arab states will give to them for abandoning Israel.

It must be remembered that Israel is a lot more vulnerable than South Africa was in the 1970s. Israel does not have the natural resources and markets that induced so many countries to ignore the sanctions imposed on South Africa. On the ruthless stage of international politics, the actors are normally motivated by self-interest rather than by moral principle, and unfortunately supporting Israel may be just, but it is not in the self-interest of the Europeans or most other nations to do so, whereas it certainly is to their economic advantage to support the Arabs. Abasing oneself before the king of Saudi Arabia or the Sultan of Oman means big financial rewards. This court decision will give the so-called neutral nations, and the "friends" of Israel, the pretense of morality when acting in their own self interest-- to Israel's detriment.

I fear that Israel will be strangled to death, and the UN's ICJ has placed the noose around her neck.

Of course, in the long term, helping the Arab war against Israel is not the the benefit of other nations. Israel is the canary in the mine. One of the most searing memories I have of September 11, 2001 is the sight of Arab students on a Canadian campus cheering the fall of the two towers.


Shamayim

[Elisheba]

shamayim, very impressive post. Thank you.

So, shall we just close up Israel now and return to the good old days before the Holocaust?

The EU? The UN? The ICJ? Don't fear them: as @ Masada: NEVER AGAIN!

[frizzer1]

shamayim, very impressive post. Thank you.

So, shall we just close up Israel now and return to the good old days before the Holocaust?

The EU? The UN? The ICJ? Don't fear them: as @ Masada: NEVER AGAIN!

But Elisheba when almost the entire world is against Israel,it is worrisome.Israel can't survive alone and if the US ever succumbs to arab pressure,it will be disastrous.
The Holocaust taught us that people do what they say they will do.We must be aware of the dangers that the EU,and UN etc represent.

[Gilgamesh]

But Elisheba when almost the entire world is against Israel,it is worrisome.Israel can't survive alone and if the US ever succumbs to arab pressure,it will be disastrous.
The Holocaust taught us that people do what they say they will do.We must be aware of the dangers that the EU,and UN etc represent.

There is a danger from the EU, mostly as the economic and technological substitute for what the Soviets used to be for the Arabs.

There is always the worry the Israel will (again) be under sanctions or even full embargo.

There are many dangers, inner and exterior, for the safety and preservation of Israel. But do we need to appease the EU, or anybody else? Is appeasment is the way forward?

I personaly have strong beliefe in the "leaning forward" attitude in international affaries. Israel can produce loud and clear messages to the EU and any other country in world, if we only wish it.

Either by exposing financial political scandels, similar to oil for food. (Maybe the exposure of the scandle was also a job of the CIA / Mossad, who knows?), elimination of famous terrorist sheltered and protected by the EU, a mysterious fire in a factory that supplays Syria and Iran WMD componantes... ect... Israel has many tools to fight EU back. Cause serious political and economical demages to EU, if ONLY our elected leaders would put thier minds into it.

International world, is a jungle, with very few laws. Dog's pyschology always works, he who is more determind and barks louder, wins. Next to EU, Israel is only a cat or a poodle. Yet, I have seen my own cat, Roza, chasing dogs bigger then her, and I have seen small dogs scaring away bigger dogs unsing nothing but sheer determination. So does Israel, if we only wish it.

[Elisheba]

But Elisheba when almost the entire world is against Israel,it is worrisome.Israel can't survive alone and if the US ever succumbs to arab pressure,it will be disastrous.
The Holocaust taught us that people do what they say they will do.We must be aware of the dangers that the EU,and UN etc represent.

You are absolutely correct.

Israel may not survive and, if that is the case, I also see another attempt to rid the world of all Jews.

That was the reason for my bravado: As at Masada, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

And, yes, the EU, the UN and its proxy, the ICJ, are horribly dangerous. They are outdated and need to be disbanded. Eurabia needs to put up its own little UN-lite for all their nutty countries and the UN per se needs to get out of NYC like yesterday.

I am worried, too, but there are some things worth dying for.

[shamayim]

I have been asked if Israel should just give up. Israel does not have that choice. Neither do the rest of us who wish to live as free men instead of slaves-- or if we wish to live at all.

I would argue that Israel survived the 1948 war, not because Israel had more men, more materiel, better tactics, equipment, training or generalship. Israel won because of the
incompetence of her enemies, and the fact that the Jews had no place else to go. Israel won because she had to. Many Arabs fled the violence in Palestine because they could. Jews could not flee the war zone. Likewise, Arab soldiers did not have to fight to the death. If they lost a battle, they had homes to go back to, their wives and children would still be safe. The Jews did not have this option if they lost. They could either fight or die.

Today the cards are stacked a mile high against Israel, but she has no choice but to fight. If Israel is wiped out, all this will do is give a green light to Jew-haters in the rest of the world. The Muslim radicals who attack Jews in France or anywhere else will not be sated by Israel's destruction. Does anyone really believe that they will suddenly fall in love with Jews merely because Israel is destroyed? The destruction of Israel will just make Diaspora Jews more vulnerable.

I think that the first thing we have to do is understand our enemies' goal. We must understand is that we are involved in an existential war-- the goal of our enemies is our destruction, and not co-existence. Wars end when your enemy is unwilling to fight any more, or because your enemy is dead. The Islamists and the Arab nationalists understand this; we in Israel and the west do not.

Then we have to determine what will make the Arabs cease their aggression, and then we have to be willing to pay the price to force them to do so-- and the price will be very high.
The way to win is to make the cost of war too high for our enemies. We must exact a toll that they are unwilling to pay.

Just as how the Palestinians are rewarded for terror, and the Muslim world and the Europeans are rewarded for supporting the Palestinians, and punished for supporting Israel, Israel and her supporters have to demonstrate that there will be negative consequences for her enemies and their allies. We too must start using the carrot and stick method.

I do not have any easy answers for you. I have learned one elementary lesson from war though: "Big boys' game, big boys' rules." We must be prepared to fight by big boy's rules, or we shall lose.

Regards,

Shamayim

[Elisheba]

I have been asked if Israel should just give up.

Never give in

Never give up

NEVER AGAIN

[Independent]

What's wrong with a wall along the green line?

[Gilgamesh]

What's wrong with a wall along the green line?

A fence along the green line do not answer Israel's security needs and also hurts JEWS rights: Such as freedom of worship and right of self determination.

JEWS have a right for a unified Jerusalem, safe and one that can enable freedom of worship to all religion, Jewish included. Such freedom is automaticly denied in case of Arab domination of the city (or it's eastern side).

[Elisheba]

What's wrong with a wall along the green line?

WTF is your agenda on this board?

At this point, you have 5 posts. I have run across AT LEAST 4 and they are all whining about a 'wall' along the green line.

By any chance, are you one of those made-up people? I mean, are you a post-1967 arab living INSIDE of Israel?