QandO

July 14, 2004

The IC and Israel's right to self-defense
Posted by McQ

In an op/ed piece in the Boston Globe, Jeff Robbins details the anti-Israel bias in the UN.

Not much of a shock there. But while reading it I was struck by this paragraph which gives a good distillation of a point a lot of people continue to miss pertaining to conflict there:

When the Israelis pleaded with the Palestinian leadership to stop the murder of its citizens, it refused to do so. Confronted with the Palestinian refusal to stop the deliberate murder of Israeli civilians and the international community's silence on the subject, the Israelis had a choice: to continue to hope vainly that the Palestinian leadership would have a change of heart or to take steps to defend its civilians. They chose the latter, through a security fence that, whatever tragic hardships it imposes on innocent Palestinians, offers the Palestinian leadership a choice of its own: to either stop the terror and see the fence come down or continue the killings and see the fence completed.

Peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict requires both sides to work toward it. The Palestinians have shown very little if any desire to participate in such a process. They've done little to stop attacks against Israelis. This unwillingness on their
part to stop the violence leaves little in the way of choices for Israel.

I find it hard to condemn a nation which tries to defend its citizens against attack. Its therefore hard for me to find fault with Israel when it decides to wall off its attackers and prevent them killing Israelis. Obviously there's another alternative. Israel could take a page from its Arab neighbors, declare its intent to "wipe Palestinians from the face of the earth, to push them into the sea" and go on a bloody rampage against them. As a nation, it certainly has the means to do pretty much that if they so chose.

But instead they opt for a defensive measure ... and are roundly condemned.

Which brings me back to the discussion of the submission of sovereignty to world bodies. The latest condemnation of Israel, as Robbins points out, comes from the International Court:

One was reminded of that wisdom when news came last week of the long-expected International Court decision condemning Israel for having begun construction of a fence in 2002 in order to stop the campaign of murder of Israeli civilians launched by Palestinians two years earlier. Issued by judges appointed by the UN General Assembly, the result was foreordained the moment the court accepted the Palestinians' challenge to the fence while simultaneously refusing to consider the Palestinian campaign of targeting Israeli civilians that had brought about the decision to construct the fence in the first place.

This is the bias Israel faces not only in the UN, but in what passes for "international law". A complete whitewash of Palestinian responsibility for the decision by Israel to build the fence. No consideration at all of the huge mitigating factor of persistant Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. A complete acceptance of the Palestinian claim that it was the only injured party in this little charade.

Justice?

About as much justice as there is with a lynch mob. It is a decision worthy of the worst kangaroo court.

This travesty points to why it is so important that the US retain its sovereignty and reject such institution as the International Court. The concept of a "fair and benevolent world government" may be an enticing utopian vision, but current attempts fall far short of that goal. Justice demands equal treatment, fairness and impartiality. It demands that the arguments of both sides be heard and weighed and a fair decision be rendered. It requires that the political realm be banished from that of justice.

The current International Court decision against Israel's fence points to an international institution that is not ready for prime time and does not deserve to be supported by the US. The IC chose politics over justice, and that's simply unacceptable. The decision also underscores the fact that the US should continue to resist participation in or submission to the rulings of such institutions.

Israel, in the meantime, should do what is necessary to protect its citizens, and it should be unwaveringly backed by the US in that endeavor. After all, we demand nothing but the same right ourselves.

TrackBack