U.S. Votes For UN Security Council Resolution on Road Map.  Why??? The short course on the U.N.

Why Israel is concerned about internationalization of the conflict:

WHY ISRAEL REJECTS "OBSERVERS" by Saul Singer -- Why Not Outside Observers? / The British Observe the Hadassah Convoy Massacre / UN Observers Before the Six-Day War / The One-Sided Response of UNIFIL / International Observers are Not Neutral / Further Examples of International Monitoring / The Experience of Observers in Hebron / Putting Observers at Risk / What About American Observers?

PFLP TERROR COORDINATED BY TERRORISTS UNDER BRITISH & AMERICAN SUPERVISION: By Haaretz Staff and Agencies 26 December 2003 -- Four people were killed and 20 wounded in a suicide bombing at the Geha Junction between Petah Tikva and Bnei Brak yesterday...The Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) claimed responsibility for the attack.  Most of the PFLP cells' orders, defense officials say, still come from a group of PFLP leaders who have been in a Palestinian jail in Jericho, under British and American supervision, for more than a year. The Palestinian Authority jailed these men due to Israeli and American pressure following the PFLP's assassination of minister Rehavam Ze'evi in October 2001, but they have been given virtually unrestricted telephone access, issue frequent press statements and receive regular visits from other PFLP members.

Ilka Schroeder, a 25-year-old member of the European Parliament and former member of the German Green Party at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, January 2004 speaks on the connections between anti Semitism, EU funding of terror [See this for details] and the shared interests in internationalizing the conflict by the Palestinians and European powers.  She sees the Al-Aksa Intifada as a proxy war between Europe and the United States.

The Myth of International Law - Gerald M. Steinberg

Israel's High Court of Justice recently ruled that the separation barrier built to protect Israelis against Palestinian terrorist attacks was morally justified as well as legal. While ordering some changes in the routing to limit the impact on Palestinians, the Israeli court rejected the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion, which called the barrier illegal. The ICJ's majority had erased the context of terrorism, and focused exclusively on distorted political claims.
    Claims regarding international law and universal human rights norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the U.S., Britain, or other countries do not reflect any consistent moral position. Instead, they are used to pursue a political and ideological agenda that is essentially anti-democratic. If the principles of universal justice were the objectives, rather than simply the means for supporting personal goals, then Palestinian, Syrian, Saudi and other terrorists would have been tried for war crimes and human rights violations long ago. (Jerusalem Post)

[Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, Oct 21, 2005]

The "Apartheid Wall" - Editorial,  (Wall Street Journal, 26Sep05)

The "security fence" consists of two high-rise metal fences, topped by razor wire and equipped with sensor pads, movement detectors, spotlights, and infrared cameras. It's patrolled 24 hours a day by the military. No, we're not talking about Israel's security barrier. The "apartheid wall" described above surrounds Melilla which, together with Ceuta, is a leftover of Spain's colonial past in northern Africa. There's more than a hint of hypocrisy here. While Spain and much of Europe condemn Israel for building a security fence on disputed territory, the Socialist government in Madrid - which talks grandly of an "Alliance of Civilizations" - does exactly the same. Only, unlike in Israel's case, this wall isn't there to stop terrorists and save lives. It's intended to keep out Sub-Saharans looking for a better life. Spain even gets EU funding for it.

[Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, Sept 26, 2005]

The U.N. General Assembly voted 150-6 on July 20, 2004  to demand that Israel obey a World Court ruling and tear down its West Bank barrier.  All 25 European Union countries voted in support of the Palestinian-drafted measure.  “Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall,” Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said after the vote.  Deputy Chief of Israel's UN Mission Arye Mekel said it would be difficult to see how the Europeans could fulfill any part in the peace process after Tuesday's vote. A senior Israeli official said that France played a devastating role in rallying support for the draft among EU nations.

Israel follows its own law, not bigoted Hague decision, Jerusalem Post, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, July 11, 2004

No Israeli judge may serve on [the International Court of Justice in The Hague] 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.

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.

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.

Israel's Response to the UN General Assembly on the ICJ Fence Decision
- Ambassador Dan Gillerman (Israel's UN Mission; 16 July 2004)

• For years, if not decades, this Assembly has entertained the Palestinian representative's attempts to manufacture a virtual reality. An alternate world in which there is but one victim and one villain, in which there are Palestinian rights but no Palestinian responsibilities, in which there are Israeli responsibilities but no Israeli rights.

• This persistent campaign has contributed little to the credibility of the UN, and nothing to the cause of peace. With each successive partisan initiative we are left to wonder how can the UN contribute to the welfare of both peoples, if it sees the suffering of only one?

• The path to peace does not lie in The Hague or in New York, it lies in Ramallah and Gaza, from where the terrorism is directed.

• Israel has respect for the institution of the International Court of Justice and we believe in its ideals. We represent a people that knows all too well the cost of living in a society in which individuals are not protected by the balanced application of the rule of law.

• Israel's Supreme Court is probably the only court in the entire Middle East in which any Arab can challenge his own government's actions and be assured of justice, rather than jail. On June 30th, in response to one such petition, Israel's Supreme Court recognized Israel's authority to erect a fence as a defensive measure against terrorist attacks.

• The Supreme Court also affirmed that had the fence been built along the so-called "green line" - an arbitrary line that has never served as an international border - that itself would have been evidence that the route was being determined by inappropriate political considerations rather than justifiable security ones.

• At the same time, the Israeli Supreme Court stressed that the fence must be carefully balanced against the rights of those affected by it. The court laid out a detailed proportionality test by which such a balance could be reached, and went on to find, by reference to that test, that sections of the fence required rerouting.

• We are not impressed by lectures from Palestinian spokesmen about respect for the rule of law. We have all witnessed first hand the extent of the Palestinian leadership's respect for law in its support for a brutal campaign of terrorism that violates every basic legal norm. We have learned of their concern for human rights and humanitarian law, when rejoicing over the murder of innocent citizens in terrorist attacks, not only in Israel but around the world, or when plundering international donor money intended to benefit their own people.

• The terrorism that made the fence necessary is not only a grave violation of international law, it is the enemy of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and its eradication is an indispensable step to lasting peace. By closing the avenues to terror, we can open the path to peace. The barrier between Israelis and Palestinians is not the security fence, but the terrorism that made it necessary.

[Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, July 19, 2004]

Two messages from The Hague, Haaretz, Ze'ev Schiff, July 13, 2004

Two substantial messages have been sent by the ruling of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The first is that Israel has no right to determine how it should defend itself against terror.  [Jerusalem Post: What Israel [is expected to] do, apparently, is capitulate to the Palestinians politically, retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, and defend itself as best it can within – and only within – those narrow borders. Yashiko Sagamori:  "The law of every civilized country allows a person to defend his or her life with necessary means. Only criminals sentenced to death are denied the right of self-defense in the face of imminent mortal danger."] The second, representing a trend that has for long been gaining strength in Europe, is that the Israelis are never seen as victims.

There are dozens of fences in areas of conflict the world over, but only the Israeli fence, which was built as a desperate response to the terrorism of the suicide bombers, interests the ICJ. Had the court examined the issue of the Palestinian refugees, it would certainly have proposed opening all the gates to them. Had it discussed the issues, it certainly would have opposed the destruction of the tunnels in Rafah or the assassination of active terrorists.

We should adopt the argument of geographer Arnon Sofer, who said that the fence will prevent Israel from being flooded by Palestinians. Proof of that can already be found in the tremendous decline in crime in the communities of the Sharon and in the number of Palestinians coming to settle in Israel, and in the decrease in attacks in the areas where the fence has been built.

Why Israel Needs a Fence, New York Times, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, July 13, 2004

[I]srael is not building the fence on territory that under international law can be properly called "Palestinian land." The fence is being built in disputed territories that Israel won in a defensive war in 1967 from a Jordanian occupation that was never recognized by the international community. Israel and the Palestinians both claim ownership of this land. According to Security Council Resolution 242, this dispute is to be resolved by a negotiated peace that provides Israel with secure and recognized boundaries.  [Eran Lerman: The trouble is [the IJC has] retroactively decided to judge the Six Day War of 1967 as a war of aggression, and that Israel is not entitled to do anything in the territories that came under Israeli control as a result of that war.]

Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain that their children are late to school because of the fence. But too many of our children never get to school — they are blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where there is still no fence.

In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence. [T]he court's decision makes a mockery of Israel's right to defend itself . . .

The ICJ is the UN's least effective body, The Guardian,  Marcel Berlins, July 13, 2004

The rejection by Israel of the international court of justice's opinion on the wall in Palestine is not the first time the court's view has been rubbished, and will be ignored, by the losing party. Famously, in 1986, the court delivered a firm judgment against the United States, ruling that its military interventions in Nicaragua were contrary to international law. The decision was totally ignored by the US; indeed, they didn't even turn up to put their arguments to the court or to hear its final decision. Add France and Iceland to the list of  democracies which have defied the ICJ on grounds of national security and sovereignty without any threat of sanctions.
 

U.N. court ruling ignores victims of terrorism, Chicago Sun-Times, Editorial, July 11, 2004

The quest for a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has suffered an enormous setback at the hands of the International Court of Justice. In an egregious and shameful ruling against the security fence, this court would sweep aside Israel's right to defend its people. The United States must throw its full weight, including using its veto, against any U.N. effort to further the court's decision.

We know one thing for certain about the 14 members of the court backing the ruling: Their spouses don't face the threat of being blown to bits taking a bus to work. Their children weren't eviscerated with nails from bombs exploded in malls and discos. Their families weren't massacred while sitting down for a religious feast.

To give this opinion even the slightest credence is to deny the reality of the nearly four years of Yasser Arafat's terrorist war against the Israeli people. The fence is being built because Arafat refused to negotiate a settlement. It's being built because of the thirst for blood of Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Islamic Jihad. It's being built because Palestinian society embraces a cult of mass murder -- a poll last month by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found 68 percent of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and 53 percent in the West Bank favor suicide bombings. Of all the reasons the court's ruling is wrong, not the least is its lack of a simple, decent regard for human life. It's as simple as this: No terror, no fence.

This court had no business even taking up the issue. Thirty countries, including the United States, told the court that much last winter. It is supposed to rule only on legal -- not political -- issues brought before it by sovereign nations. Israel didn't ask for it. And thanks to Arafat's treachery, betrayals and dedication to terrorism, there is no sovereign Palestinian state. The court's action, and the U.N. machinations that are sure to follow, will only embolden Arafat in his intransigence and spur fantasies among Palestinians that can still somehow defeat the Israelis. That can only be a blow to any hopes to an eventual resumption of meaningful peace talks.

Israel, of course, isn't about to bow to the court's demand that it declare open season on the lives of its citizens. The fence has proven it saves lives; there's been a 90 percent -- 90 percent! -- drop in attacks from West Bank areas now fenced off by the barrier. That's why it's popular among Israelis on both the right and the left, though they may debate about details in its route.

Now we're going to be subjected to denunciations, grandstanding and vindictive resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council. But Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli's finance minister and a former prime minister, sums it up well: The U.N. can issue any pronouncement it wants but "it won't make it legal, it won't make it true and it won't make it just."

The court has shown only that it, and not Israel's defensive fence, is illegitimate.

The Pattern of Palestinian Rejectionism - Yossi Klein Halevi (Jerusalem Post)

• The tragedy of the International Court's ruling on the security fence isn't only its depressing predictability, a politicization that undermines the hope for a global system of justice.

• Nor is the tragedy only that Israel's right to self-defense has been branded illegitimate, while the criminals remain uncensored.

• Perhaps the worst consequence of the ruling is that it will reinforce Palestinians' faith in their own innocence and victimization, and preclude a self-examination of their responsibility in maintaining the conflict.

• Where is the Palestinian debate about whether four years of suicide bombings were a wise response to the Israeli offer of Palestinian statehood - let alone a debate about the moral and spiritual consequences of turning Palestinian Islam into a satanic cult?

• Palestinian society has regressed into a culture of denial that rejects the most minimal truths of Jewish history and Jewish rights to this land.

• The Palestinians' avoidance mechanisms are reinforced by the international community, whose sympathy for Palestinian suffering becomes support for Palestinian intransigence.

• In choosing to judge Israel rather than the Palestinian leadership, the International Court legitimizes Palestinian self-pity and sabotages the possibility of change.

[Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, July 9, 2004]

Settlements and International Law - Eugene Kontorovich
The international law said by Israel's critics to prohibit Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank is Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The article provides that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." "Occupation," as used in the treaty, seems to mean seizing territory belonging to another country. The West Bank, however, was not part of Jordan's territory when Israel took it in 1967. At the time, the area was not recognized as the territory of any nation.
    What is clear is that the Convention specifically bars action only by the "occupying power" - in other words, the government and public authorities of the country. It does not apply to the movements and real estate decisions of private individuals. Various other parts of the Convention distinguish between "nationals of the occupying Power" and "the occupying power" itself; the prohibitions of Article 49 fall exclusively on the latter. Certainly the Geneva Convention is not a zoning law, or a Jim Crow ordinance preventing people of a certain nationality from living where they choose.
    The Palestinian Authority insists that the price of any deal be not only the withdrawal of Israeli sovereign force, but also the expulsion of all Jews from the area. The Geneva Convention was designed to protect against governmental efforts to forcibly change the ethnic make-up of an area, efforts of the kind that occurred in World War II. It would be a bitter irony if it were misread as requiring that any territory be kept free of Jews, or any ethnic group. The writer is a professor at Northwestern University Law School, where he teaches international and constitutional law. (New York Sun)

[Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, February 15, 2008]

LGF, 7/10/2004: Michael Moore fans Hizballah have announced that the International Kangaroo Court’s rulings about Israel’s security fence are meaningless, and that the Jew-killing must continue: Hizbollah Says Only Resistance Can Destroy Barrier.

The International Court of Justice convened at The Hague on Feb. 23, 2004 to discuss a question posed to it by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan: “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?” The proceedings could trigger more than debate on the borders of Israel, which have never been defined legally. If the opinion goes against Israel, it could lead to international sanctions. 

The question at hand is not really the fence, but whether the Arab bloc, having transformed everything from the U.N. Human Rights Commission to the Durban anti-racism conference into anti-Israel vehicles, will be able to do the same to the ICJ.

“We may turn into present-day South Africa,” Justice Minister Yosef “Tommy” Lapid said. Israel could be exposed to the kind of “international boycott which was in place until the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa,” he said.  Other countries have fences (including one planned by Saudi Arabia with Yemen see Saudi Arabia Enrages Yemen With Fence)-- but Israel is an "apartheid state" while the others are just "beefing up" their borders -- even the EU is building a fence.  [Forward, July 16, 2004: "In an unprecedented victory for pro-Palestinian activists, leaders of the largest Presbyterian denomination officially equated the Jewish State with apartheid South Africa and have voted to stop investing in Israel" -- How wrong they are.  Richard Baehr, Presbyterian Jihad:  "The Church strangely did not pass any resolutions at their General Assembly this year about the slaughter of black Muslims in the Sudan by Arabs, and they never passed any resolutions in prior years, when the Sudanese Arabs chose to slaughter black Christians. They were silent when the Rwanda genocide occurred, as well."]

What’s really going on here is old-fashioned anti-Semitism under the guise of European enlightenment -- the Arabs intend to turn The Hague into another Durban

For all the talk of "apartheid" and "cantons" one might think that the fence will divide up the Palestinian areas. A glance at the now widely available maps shows that the fence route runs mostly along the Green Line. Only about 6 percent of the West Bank would be on the Israeli side of the fence.   The fence, far from being inconsistent with a two state solution, is actually a somewhat desperate attempt to impose one. A decision against Israel's security fence in the International Court of Justice, for example, might be the final nail in the coffin for the road map. Why should the Palestinians fight terrorism when they are successfully turning Israel into a pariah state just for defending itself?  [More]

Caroline Glick on Israel's Case: A strategically apt defense would point out the larger picture: the Palestinians are conducting a total war against us that encompasses nearly every facet of human life. In defending Israel in public forums, it is neither productive nor reasonable for Israel to limit its defense to reactions against Palestinian legalistic aggression and diplomatic perversion.

Egypt Building Fence to Protect Red Sea Resort (BBC News)
Egypt has started to build a 20km security fence around the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to try to stop terrorist attacks on the town, security officials say.   [Courtesy -- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Daily Alert, Oct 19, 2005]

Also see: Apparently the U.S. will support Israel at the Hague kangaroo court despite earlier indications.  Poll: Americans support security fence

Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Fence Website

More on the Fence

U.S. MULLS INTERNATIONAL FORCE FOR PA

From August 29, 2003 05:37 AM posted by Ted Belman, IsraPundit

It seems that Emanuel Winston's comments posted here yesterday about a NATO force are more than speculation. It used to be acknowledged, by some, Israel included, that such a force could only come in with Israel's consent. I wonder if such consent would be forthcoming or whether the force will be imposed on Israel.

Couple this with the refusal of the EU to abandon Arafat or Hamas and with Powells recent approaches to Arafat and Hamas, and it becomes more and more credible.

EU is so pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, that such a force must be considered hostile.

I see it as one more nail in the coffin outlined by the '67 borders. Ted

[IMRA: What exactly could a heavily armed combat force sent by countries whose top priority is to keep on the good side of the Arabs do? Protect terrorists from Israeli security forces.]

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has been examining the prospect of organizing an international force to stop the Israeli-Palestinian war.

Officials said both the Bush administration and Congress have quietly discussed an effort to recruit at least one division of combat troops that would patrol the West Bank and Gaza Strip and enforce a Palestinian ceasefire with Israel. They said many in the administration and Congress have concluded that a Palestinian state can not be established without an international force that will impose a ceasefire in the region. (What about collecting weapons.)

"We're not talking about another U.S. military deployment," an official said. "Instead, we're discussing a NATO-type heavily-armed combat force that would be based mostly on troop contributions from Europe. There has been some discussions and positive feedback from some of our European friends."

Officials said congressional leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, have supported the deployment of U.S. troops in the Palestinian areas as part of an international force. They said NATO and the international community would require at least a pool of 30,000 troops, aircraft and armored platforms to form a credible deterrent against Palestinian insurgency groups that operate in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At any one time, about 10,000 troops would patrol the West Bank and Gaza Strip in cooperation with Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

European Union - 1/4 of Quartet: How Utterly UNreassuring.  EU FUNDS TERROR.

Deputy Undersecretary of State David Satterfield, one of the leaders of the U.S. monitoring group sent to oversee implementation of  "Road Map" has justified some acts of Arab terrorism against Israel.

New State Department Mideast Committee Includes Extremists Who Called For Israel's Destruction & Softer Line On Saddam

Click here to return to our home page.