Travesty at The Hague
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Charles Krauthammer
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
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a