Israel and the ICJ

Judgement on the Fence

Published on July 16, 2004 By CS Guy In Current Events

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting article about the International Court of Justice and Israel.

He opens with one of the principles expressed in the ICJ’s decision on Israel’s security fence. “It is a violation of international law for Jews to be living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.” Sounds a little strange since “Jews have been inhabiting the Old City of Jerusalem since it became their capital 3,000 years ago…”

There are some interesting numbers provided concerning suicide attacks. In the last four months, two Israelis have died. Compare this to the 166 killed “in the same time frame at the height of the terror.”

Krauthammer mentions the hardships that the fence inflicts upon the Palestinians. But these hardships are ones of convenience, and not life or death. Sure, some farmers have been separated from their fields, and some children have to walk much farther for school. But can we really equate these difficulties with “Israeli schoolchildren with nails and bolts and shrapnel lodged in their brains and spines who will never be walking to school again.”

He later points out the hypocrisy of having this 'humanitarian' judgment handed down by the chief judge representing China. He equates this with the absolute farce of having Libya made the chairman of the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights.

Additionally, the ICJ has no jurisdiction to judge on this case. Israel never agreed to arbitration of the ICJ, which requires the consent of both parties. But this is just an example of Israel ignoring the will of the international community, right? Well, only if you think the United States, Russia, and the European Union are not significant members of the international community, since they agreed with Israel that this issue was beyond the scope of the ICJ.

Krauthammer provides an interesting look at the history of Israel and the ICJ.

“The ICJ's long account of the history of the conflict is equally corrupt. For example: In 1947, the U.N. partitioned Palestine into two states -- one Jewish, one Arab. When the British pulled out and Israel proclaimed its independence, five Arab countries responded immediately by declaring war and invading Israel with the announced intention of destroying the newborn state. How does the ICJ render this event? ``On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence. ... Armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab states.'' Broke out? As if three years after the Holocaust and almost entirely without weapons, a tiny country of 600,000 Jews had decided to make war on five Arab states with nearly 30 million people.”

Comments

bakerstreet

on Jul 16, 2004

The ICJ and the War Crimes Tribunal are going to be used as a political hammer by anyone that has a grudge. Given the overty anti-American attitude in Europe, don't expect Israel to be the only one to bear the brunt of it either.

They are going to impose their values on the world at the end of a gavel. I expect it to be nasty once they start charging American and Israeli officials in the next few years.

CS Guy

on Jul 16, 2004

They are going to impose their values on the world at the end of a gavel. I expect it to be nasty once they start charging American and Israeli officials in the next few years.

The problem they are going to face is one of permission versus capability; "may" versus "can." They can issue all of the judgements they want, but can they inforce those judgements?

They are trying to tell Israel that Israel MAY not build the fence. However, Israel CAN build it, and so the judgement is ignored.

bakerstreet

on Jul 16, 2004

It depends on how many nations adhere to it and whether the UN would be willing to put force, i.e. a trade embargo or breaking diplomatic relations or whatnot. I expect "peaceful resistance". In the end it may be uncomfortable to resist our European robot overlords, lol. I wouldn't advise them to go on hunger strikes or anything though...

Madine

on Jul 16, 2004

The power that courts have is "soft" power. Their decisions are followed largely because of respect. Delivering this ruling has damaged this court's credibility.

CS Guy

on Jul 16, 2004

The power that courts have is "soft" power.

Without a means of enforcing their "law" the ICJ is simply an organisation for producing comment.

bakerstreet

on Jul 16, 2004

"Without a means of enforcing their "law" the ICJ is simply an organisation for producing comment."

Or propaganda for terrorists and vigilantes who need "legitimate" opinion to validate their acts. Every time Israel is condemned by the UN all the Al Jazeera pundits get a woody...

CS Guy

on Jul 16, 2004

Or propaganda for terrorists and vigilantes who need "legitimate" opinion to validate their acts.

True, and this is where the ICJ moves from being a joke to being a tragedy.

bzjaffe

on Jul 18, 2004

CS Guy,

Thank you for the informative post. Good to know that Israel isn't allowed to fight terrorism through peaceful means either.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!