-
Информация о материале
-
Автор: Charles Krauthammer
-
Категория: english
Washington Post, Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A21
Among various principles invoked by the International Court of Justice
in its highly publicized decision on Israel's security fence is this one:
It is a violation of international law for Jews to be living in the Jewish
quarter of Jerusalem. If this sounds absurd to you -- Jews have been inhabiting
the Old City of Jerusalem since it became their capital 3,000 years ago
-- it is. And it shows the lengths to which the United Nations and its
associate institutions, including this kangaroo court, will go to condemn
Israel.
The court's main business was to order Israel to tear down the security
fence separating Israelis from Palestinians. The fence is only one-quarter
built, and yet it has already resulted in an astonishing reduction in suicide
attacks in Israel. In the past four months, two Israelis have died in suicide
attacks, compared with 166 killed in the same time frame at the height
of the terrorism.
But what are 164 dead Jews to this court? Israel finally finds a way
to stop terrorism, and 14 eminences sitting in The Hague rule it illegal
-- in a 64-page opinion in which the word terrorism appears not once (except
when citing Israeli claims).
Yes, the fence causes some hardship to Palestinians. Some are separated
from their fields, some schoolchildren have to walk much farther to class.
This is unfortunate. On any scale of human decency, however, it is far
more unfortunate that 1,000 Israelis are dead from Palestinian terrorism,
and thousands more horribly maimed, including Israeli schoolchildren with
nails and bolts and shrapnel lodged in their brains and spines who will
never be walking to school again.
From the safe distance of 2,000 miles, the court declared itself "not
convinced" that the barrier Israel is building is a security necessity.
It based its ruling on the claim that the fence violates Palestinian "humanitarian"
rights such as "the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate
standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child."
I'm sure these conventions are lovely documents. They are also documents
of absolutely no weight -- how many countries would not stand condemned
for failure to provide an "adequate standard of living"? -- except, of
course, when it comes to Israel. Then, any document at hand will do.
What makes the travesty complete is that this denial of Israel's right
to defend itself because doing so might violate "humanitarian" rights was
read in open court by the chief judge representing China, whose government
massacred hundreds of its own citizens demonstrating peacefully in Tiananmen
Square. Not since Libya was made chairman of the Commission on Human Rights
has the U.N. system put on such a shameless display of hypocrisy.
Moreover, the court had no jurisdiction to take this case. It is a
court of arbitration, which requires the consent of both parties. The Israelis,
knowing the deck was stacked, refused to give it. Not only did the United
States declare this issue outside the boundaries of this court, so did
the European Union and Russia, hardly Zionist agents.
The court went ahead nonetheless, betraying its prejudice in its very
diction. For example, throughout the opinion it refers to the barrier as
a "wall." In fact, over 93 percent of its length consists of fences, troughs
and electronic devices to prevent terrorist infiltration. Less than one
kilometer out of every 15 is wall, and this is generally in areas that
Palestinian gunmen have been using to shoot directly onto Israeli highways
and into villages. Sensors and troughs cannot stop bullets.
The court's long account of the history of the conflict is equally
corrupt. For example: In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine
into two states -- one Jewish, one Arab. When the British pulled out and
Israel proclaimed its independence, five Arab countries responded immediately
by declaring war and invading Israel with the announced intention of destroying
the newborn state. How does the court render this event? "[O]n 14 May 1948,
Israel proclaimed its independence . . . armed conflict then broke out
between Israel and a number of Arab States." Broke out? As if three years
after the Holocaust and almost entirely without weapons, a tiny country
of 600,000 Jews had decided to make war on five Arab states with nearly
30 million people.
Israel will rightly ignore the decision. The United States, acting
honorably in a world of utter dishonor regarding Israel, will support that
position. It must be noted that one of the signatories of this attempt
to force Israel to tear down its most effective means of preventing the
slaughter of innocent Jews was the judge from Germany. The work continues.
Russian version