Israel and the ICJ
Judgement on the Fence
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
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.”
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.”
