Friday, July 23, 2004

More indispensable comments on The Ruling

WorldNetDaily having an even better day than usual, Ilana Mercer meticulously takes apart the core of the motivation of the ICJ ruling against Israel and the barrier it is erecting to stop or at least stem Arab Palestinian terrorism. A similar fence around Gaza has effectively stopped Arab suicide bombings from that hellhole altogether.
In a submission that argued the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the matter, Israeli Ambassador Alan Baker demolished the claim that Palestine is an injured party: "Palestine, given its responsibility for acts of violence against Israel and its population – which the wall is aimed at addressing – cannot seek from the Court a remedy for a situation resulting from its wrongdoing."

This Blackstone-quality argument fell on deaf ears. The judges, from Jordan (Judge Al-Khasawneh), Japan (The Honorable Owada), Egypt (Justice Elaraby), and Sierra Leone (Abdul G. Koroma) resorted to a narrow and bizarre reading of the U.N. Charter. Only if Israel were attacked by a proper state, they "reasoned," would the Charter's self-defense provision apply.
Notice the crew of this court? Is there anyone who honestly feels that an Arab - or indeed any Muslim - is capable of an honest ruling involving Israel? Would any Arab country EVER accept an ICJ ruling against it (not that that would ever happen), particularly if an Israeli were one of the judges (not that that would ever happen).
"The fence is reversible," an Israeli official concluded, "whereas the lives taken by terrorism are not." This Mosaic emphasis on the sanctity of life was lost on the International Court of Justice, so called.


Post a Comment

<< Home