|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 A Court Without
Clout
Anti-Israel
politics from the rulers of the law...
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 7/22/04
The International
Court of Justice, the so-called judicial arm of the United
Nations, delivered another ruling recently
that demonstrated its relative uselessness in the overall scheme
of things. Its decision, supported by fourteen of the court’s
fifteen justices, declared portions of Israel’s fence illegal
because it is being built on land it says belongs to the Palestinians.
The court called upon the Israelis to compensate Palestinians
whose property has been seized or damaged.
Israel is under an
obligation to cease work on the wall and to dismantle the parts
of it on “occupied Palestinian territory”,
said the court president, Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, a nation
that knows something about walls. The wall, which might well
become permanent, the court acknowledged, could become tantamount
to the occupation of Palestinian land. Moreover, the court continued,
all countries “are under an obligation not to recognize
the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the
wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation
created by such construction.”
If you are having
trouble deciphering that last bit of language, don’t bother. It’s too hot to work all that hard
at it and besides, it doesn’t matter much anyway because
the entire decision is non-binding, which makes the World Court
the perfect choice as the judicial arm of the increasingly irrelevant
United Nations. Even if its politically driven and gratuitous
rulings were binding, the World Court lacks the ability to enforce
them unless the Security Council acts, an event about as unlikely
as Whoopi Goldberg being invited to speak at the Republican Convention.
Even if it tried, the U.S. veto would end it.
But the strangest
part of the ruling was the court’s finding
that Israel’s security needs did not justify construction
of the barrier. Well, perhaps not to the justices, from such
bastions of legal wisdom as France, Sierra Leone, Jordan and
Egypt, sitting in the peace and tranquility of their chambers
in The Hague, but I’m sure that most Israelis who have
been targets of Palestinian suicide bombers see plenty of justification
for it. The barrier has resulted in a dramatic reduction in such
attacks and has saved lives. To my way of thinking, that’s
the primary humanitarian consideration and it takes precedent
over the inconveniencing of some Palestinians.
The World Court cites
Israel’s obligations under “international
humanitarian law and human rights instruments.” But how
about the obligations of the Palestinians to stop engaging in
terrorism? Isn’t terrorism prohibited by international
humanitarian law, also? If the wall stops the killing of innocent
Jews or even slows it down, then its construction is not only
justified, it is overdue.
All of this concern
about Palestinian territory is baffling. No boundaries establishing
a Palestinian state have ever been
agreed upon. Every attempt by the Israelis to offer land for
peace and to create a permanent Palestinian nation in return
for recognition of Israel’s right to exist has been rejected
and answered by more terrorism in an effort to extract more concessions.
Aside from feeling some sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians,
who deserve better leadership from their incompetent authorities,
it is hard to understand why the Palestinian cause commands so
much support in the capitals of Europe and the talk chambers
of the UN unless it can be attributed to growing anti-Semitism.
Consider the brief but difficult history of the Jewish state.
Created from the partition of the British Palestine Mandate in
1948, Israel was attacked by five of its Arab neighbors on its
very first day of independence. Although the Arabs, in spite
of overwhelming superiority in numbers, suffered an inglorious
defeat, Jordan remained in control of the area now known as the
West Bank until 1967 when Israel again defeated its Arab tormentors
in the Six-Day War. Israel took control of the West Bank from
Jordan and Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. It returned
the Sinai to the Egyptians and is now in the process of dismantling
its settlements in Gaza, which it will cede to the Palestinians.
It is also proceeding to withdraw from four settlements in the
West Bank and creating, in effect, its own boundaries since the
Palestinians and its hopelessly inept leaders show no inclination
of ever agreeing to joint negotiations to determine them or to
live within them as peaceful neighbors.
Gaza is already fenced and serves as something of an example
of how to protect Jewish citizens from hostile Arabs who hate
them and want to destroy them. Fencing the West Bank is the logical
next step in protecting its citizens, which, it seems to me,
is the primary obligation of any government. Sounds like a reasonable
plan to me. CRO
copyright
2004 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
