FactsOfIsrael.com News, Comments and Links

<- Back to Main page

July 10, 2004
 Send to Printer    Link to this page
Israel will follow the law of judges sitting in Jerusalem; will ignore Kangaroo court from the Hague

The Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) has a good analysis by Prof. Dershowitz on how Israel will ignore the decision made by the International Kangaroo Court of the Hague. This group of clown judges has decided that Israel's security fence is "against the law":

The Supreme Court of Israel recognized the unquestionable reality that the security fence has saved numerous lives and promises to save more, but it also recognized that this benefit must be weighed against the material disadvantages to West Bank Palestinians. The International Court, on the other hand, discounted the saving of lives and focused only on the Palestinian interests. By showing its preference for Palestinian property rights over the lives of Jews, the International Court displayed its bigotry.

[...] The decision of the International Court of Justice against Israel should harm the reputation of that court in the minds of objective observers rather than damage the credibility of Israel. The Israeli government will comply with the rule of law by following the decision of its own Supreme Court.

If the International Court of Justice were itself to apply the rule of law instead of the calculus of politics, it might deserve respect. Now like the general assembly of which it's a creation and the Mississippi courts of the 1930s of which it's a clone all it deserves is the contempt of decent people for its bigoted processes and its predetermined partisan result.

Prof. Dershowitz wrote this article the day before the International Court rendered this opinion because he was certain based on the composition of the court that its verdict would be against Israel. Following the decision he did not have to change a single word.

I, and most Israelis, accuse the judges sitting in the Hague of never standing up for the Israeli children who are deliberately murdered by mass murdering bastards from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

This decision has made it very clear: while the International Kangaroo Court of Justice holds us to certain standards, the same brain dead judges from the Hague never hold the Palestinians responsible for deliberately murdering and slaughtering Israeli women and children.

I, and most Israelis, will ignore what the International Kangaroo Court of Justice has decided. I, and most Israelis, will do everything we can to stop the barbaric Islamic mass murderers from the Islamic Jihad and Arafat's Al-Aksa Brigades. I, and most Israelis are tired of this hypocrisy from the United Nations and Europe - how can people that do not live under Islamic terror judge Israel who has to face Palestinian barbarism on a daily basis?

Since Israel has started building its security fence the Palestinian mass murderers have had a much harder time in executing their homicide bombings. For more details, including a graph that shows how the number of homicide bombings has decreased, click here or here. The fence has saved many lives already and it's definitely here to stay.

I copy the full article below.

Israel follows its own law, not bigoted Hague decision
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Link

The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision regarding the security fence.

After all, the Supreme Court is a creation of the Knesset and is therefore representative of all of the people Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. Moreover, the Supreme Court has a real stake in both sides of the fence dispute. Its job is to balance the security needs of its citizens against the humanitarian concerns of West Bank Palestinians. It tried to strike that balance by upholding the concept of a security fence while insisting that the Israeli military authorities give due weight to the needs of the Palestinians, even if that requires some compromise on the security of Israelis.

Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court 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.

The Supreme Court of Israel recognized the unquestionable reality that the security fence has saved numerous lives and promises to save more, but it also recognized that this benefit must be weighed against the material disadvantages to West Bank Palestinians. The International Court, on the other hand, discounted the saving of lives and focused only on the Palestinian interests. By showing its preference for Palestinian property rights over the lives of Jews, the International Court displayed its bigotry.

The International Court of Justice is much like a Mississippi court in the 1930s. The all-white Mississippi court, which excluded blacks from serving on it, could do justice in disputes between whites, but it was incapable of doing justice in cases between a white and a black. It would always favor white litigants. So, too, the International Court. It is perfectly capable of resolving disputes between Sweden and Norway, but it is incapable of doing justice where Israel is involved, because Israel is the excluded black when it comes to that court indeed when it comes to most United Nations organs.

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. To give any credence to the decisions of that court is to legitimize bigotry.

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.

The decision of the International Court of Justice against Israel should harm the reputation of that court in the minds of objective observers rather than damage the credibility of Israel. The Israeli government will comply with the rule of law by following the decision of its own Supreme Court.

If the International Court of Justice were itself to apply the rule of law instead of the calculus of politics, it might deserve respect. Now like the general assembly of which it's a creation and the Mississippi courts of the 1930s of which it's a clone all it deserves is the contempt of decent people for its bigoted processes and its predetermined partisan result.

Prof. Dershowitz wrote this article the day before the International Court rendered this opinion because he was certain based on the composition of the court that its verdict would be against Israel. Following the decision he did not have to change a single word.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

Posted by David Melle at July 10, 2004 06:17 PM
Comments
Post a comment 
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?



Email this entry
Email this entry to (please enter email address):


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Referrers to this Page

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains some copyrighted materials the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.




(According to digits.com)