Avi Davis explains the disturbing implications of the International Court of Justice's ruling on Israel's West Bank fence:
It's a neat concept. An international court developed to adjudicate disputes between contending nations. Those who dreamed of a world government, where a single legislature would execute one body of laws to which all nations would be bound, must have been elated. With the establishment of the International Court of Justice , the idea that nations could settle their differences before a panel of eminent impartial jurists without resort to force, finally seemed to have come of age.Put that notion to rest. The decision, last week, of the international Court of Justice to present an adverse advisory opinion on Israel's construction of a fence in the West Bank has exposed the underlying flaws of any global deliberative body: inherent bias, racial prejudice and the kind of political manipulation that we have long come to associate with that other august body of impartial governance - the United Nations.
The International Court of Justice was originally mandated to adjudicate on cases of territorial disputes between states. This was in keeping with the general tenor of international law which customarily did not involve itself with internal matters of states. That orientation has shifted in recent years as both international humanitarian law and international environmental law have both gained greater prominence. The developing interest of the Court in issues of world environmental degradation or the abuse of human rights has seemingly created a new jurisdiction for the ICJ - one that allows it to penetrate national sovereign boundaries and pass judgment directly on matters that were once formerly restricted to the sovereign domain.
In many ways this has had its positive results. The crimes of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and those of the Hutu leaders in Rwanda who engineered genocidal campaigns in those countries, certainly warranted the intervention of an international judicial body, where no local court could nor would make determinations of fact. But there are nevertheless limits to this kind of judicial intervention. According to the ICJ's own rules, a dispute between two nations cannot be heard unless the two contending states agree to it. The rules and the law are not clear at all about contending parties where one is not a state but an administrative body, such as the Palestinian Authority.
The increasing encroachment of international humanitarian law on sovereign jurisdiction has many nations alarmed. The natural reflex of any government when it finds its own jurisdiction is challenged, is to protect it. Thus the decision of the United States to withdraw from the Treaty of Rome's establishment of the International Criminal Court, a policy predicated on American unwillingness to expose U.S. citizens to the vagaries of a court that could become highly politicized and not geared toward the genuine pursuit of crimes of an international nature.
Those fears now appear to have been well grounded. In agreeing to provide an advisory opinion on the West Bank fence issue and then issuing an opinion that smacks of blatant political bias, the ICJ has assaulted the very concept of impartial and independent adjudication which rests at the foundation of its mandate.
There are several grounds for this charge. First, the Court accepted jurisdiction in the matter when one of the disputants refused to participate; second, it accepted jurisdiction when one of the disputants is not a sovereign state; third, it adjudicated on a matter that has been the subject of negotiations between the competing interests for more than eleven years, therefore placing itself in the midst of an international political dispute; fourth, it took no interest whatsoever in the claims and motivations of one of those parties, ignoring entirely the humanitarian context for the fence's construction.
Even more ruinous to the Court's credibility and reputation were the majority's barefaced tolerance of terrorism and tacit acceptance of the notion that the Court could and should dictate an ultimate territorial solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Take, for instance, the opinion of Judge Awn al-Khasawneh:
"Whilst there is nothing wrong in calling on protagonists to negotiate in good faith ... no one should be oblivious that negotiations are a means to an end and cannot in themselves replace that end."
Or Judge Nabil Elaraby:
"I wholeheartedly subscribe to the view ... that the breaches by both sides of the fundamental rules of humanitarian law reside in "the illegality of the Israeli occupation regime itself". Occupation, as an illegal and temporary situation, is at the heart of the whole problem. The only viable prescription to end the grave violations of international humanitarian law is to end occupation."
Or Judge Pieter Koojimans:
"Resolutions 1368 and 1373 refer to acts of international terrorism as constituting a threat to international peace and security; they therefore have no immediate bearing on terrorist acts originating within a territory which is under control of the State which is also the victim of these acts. And Israel does not claim that these acts have their origin elsewhere. The Court therefore rightly concludes that the situation is different from that contemplated by resolutions 1368 and 1373 and that consequently Article 51 (describing a nation's right of self-defense) of the Charter cannot be invoked by Israel."
The formalistic application of the law, the brazen disrespect for the conditions and context for the construction of the wall and the inability of any of the justices, including the lone dissenting voice, to resist the temptation to rule on the legality or illegality of Israel's control of the West Bank (a matter it was never called upon to address) has sent the world a chilling message: that property rights are of greater importance to international law than the preservation of human life.
That message will certainly resound with Palestinian suicide bombers who have little interest in the preservation of human life. The tragic irony is that in the application of humanitarian principles, murderers will ultimately find the justification for the slaughter of innocent people. And for this, no greater damage can be imagined for the future efficacy of international law.
According to Fundamentalist Website I just left, the West is responsible for EVERYTHING, what 'wicked, cruel, evil people we are and Infidels !!Also checked on Al Jazeera who are going to have 'A Code of Ethics.'Really...you mean they are going to stop these beheading videos...Interesting note, one of their journalists Taysir Allouni has been detained by Spanish Authorities on charges of links to Al Quaeda.Watch this space...
DCWatson's court rules that the Israelis are to continue building the barrier between them and the wild kingdom, and orders Israel not to stop until the barrier is completed.
DCWatson's court further orders Israel to shoot dead any faction from the above-referenced wild kingdom that attempts to scale, plow, or explode said barrier.
In the interest of humanity, DCWatson's court orders Isreal to load crane buckets with bananas and pork rinds, lift the bucket over the barrier, and dump the load so that the occupants of the wild kingdom can sustain their miserable, insane existence.
Following Mentat's lead:
DCWatson for Supreme Court Justice
Ditto! He'd make a DCent judge.
(sorry, gotta take 'em where I find 'em)
Lamentably, the ICJ’s opinion’s a reflection of prevalent, abject and purblind attitudes towards the dar el-Islam and its geopolitical ambitions. These surmises have been deliberately and assiduously cultivated by the Arabs and Moslems for at least three decades, intently plying their propaganda and outright LIES in every corner, high and low, with a view to mayhem.
The Arabists and their slavering fans adore to obfuscate, always glib and tendentious. Devilish, subliminal tricks pop up all the time in their “arguments”, specially when they go juggling with history, which they presume to treat as another tool for spreading their DISINFORMATION.
They’d love people to think that because the MUTUALLY-DEFINED border set in the late 19th Century between Afghanistan and the British Raj, the “Durand Line”, was additionally termed the “Blue Line”, and likewise, due to the early 20th Century’s NEGOTIATED frontier between Poland and the USSR, the “Curzon Line”, having on top been named the “Green Line”, then the UN “Green Line”, which, from 1949 till 1967, separated Israel from Egypt (in the Gaza Strip) and Jordan (in the West Bank and east Jerusalem), is legally equivalent to these previous two, coloured Lines, which are and were de jure international boundaries, no question.
But NOT SO, in fact - this particular “Green Line” in the Middle East is no more than a regular armistice-line. It was arrived at in 1949 through deputed UN peace-brokers, without any direct discussions whatever between the principals. The sole item of the interlocutors’ meetings with them was to fix at what moment the armistice’s cease-fire would come into effect.
The bitter fighting between the defending Israelis and the Egyptian Army, on the offensive, and Transjordan’s invading Arab Legion, did unavoidably rage on to the utmost, final instant before the UN’S truce took hold, making any positional talks totally pointless.
Though Gaza remained under Egyptian military occupation (except for a brief interim during and following the Suez campaign of 1956), the West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950. (The “Palestinian” Arabs there were offered Jordanian citizenship, which many took.) Two countries, Britain and Pakistan, extended diplomatic recognition to Amman’s take-over, but NO OTHERS. In 1988, however, Jordan abrogated its claims on the West Bank, unhelpfully passing them to “the Palestinians” - in general, collectively - without identifying any specific recipient there.
Thanks to the old rejectionism of Haj Amin el-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from the mid-‘20s into the ‘60s, and of Yasser Arafat, “President” of the PA/PLO-Hamas-Jihad Islami today, NO agreements to demarcate any borders at all for “Palestine” have ever been attained, let alone such frontiers drawn, nor anywhere established “on the ground” - despite several opportunities, wasted exclusively on account of Arab, “Palestinian” and the “President”’s malign intransigence.
Why? Could it be that Arafat, will NEVER accept his borders being drafted, pinned down, at length, on any map, because his appetite’s for something more “fluid” than that? He continues to be convinced that, as he once pronounced himself: “The borders of Palestine shall be set at the range of our guns, from wherever it is that we are when we’re shooting”.
A real psychopath, fully fascist and fanatical, Genocide’s his true game, either of the detested Jews or of his OWN PEOPLE: ultimately, maniacally, he doesn’t much care which, as long as there’s mass murder. He’s said, as well, that “Palestinian” lives, to him, are “dust in the wind”.