|
Middle-East:
Straddling the fence
Gary
Fitleberg
The
International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Hague-based principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, began proceedings January 30
on the legality of the security fence Israel is building. Israel has
described the case as a “political manipulation of the United
Nations by the Palestinians.” The United States has echoed
Israel’s concerns, questioning the Court’s ability to comment on
sovereign nations’ internal matters and averring that a dangerous
precedent may be established affecting such issues as the legal
consequences of actions by allied forces in Iraq.
Arab/Islamist
dominated United Nations [Against Israel] has put political pressure
on Israel to abandon its security barrier against terrorism and
protect its citizens from harm’s way although it clearly has every
right to do so.
Several
key UN countries, including the United States, are planning to
express their reservations about the International Court of Justice
at The Hague getting involved in the issue of the separation
security fence, as requested by the UN General Assembly.
UN
sources said yesterday that at least 20 countries regarded as
important and influential in the world body will deliver opinions to
the court saying that the issue does not belong in the ICJ.
Russia
has already decided to do so. The United States affidavit was expect
ed to say the fence is a matter for political negotiations and not
appropriate for the international court.
The
United States decided to formally submit an advisory opinion to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the upcoming weeks, arguing
that the court should not rule on the issue of the Israeli
anti-terrorism fence, The Jerusalem Post reported. "We will be
submitting a letter to the court before the deadline," one
administration official told the newspaper.
U.S.
officials have also said in the past that if the court proceeds, it
would "undermine rather than encourage direct negotiations
between the parties to resolve those differences" and
"this is the wrong way and the wrong time to proceed on this
issue."
International
legal expert Alan Stephens wrote in The Jerusalem Post this w eek
the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the case of whether the
Israeli anti-terrorism fence is illegal or not because the dispute
is political , and not legal.
A
Western diplomat told Haaretz that the number of countries opposed
to The Hague hearings could reach as many as 30, depending on
whether European Un ion countries hand in their reservations as a
bloc or individually. But non e of the countries are expected to
express support for the fence along its current route inside the
disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (wrongly called the
“West Bank”).
The
Hague court has invited all 191 UN member states to express their
views on the issue under discussion, with the final deadline for
handing in country opinions tomorrow.
The
first hearing at the court is slated for February 23, when the
justices will decide whether to hear the case or send it back to the
UN General Assembly.
With
diplomats saying that government decisions regarding their position
on issues brought to ICJ often reflect the position of the country's
UN delegation, there will be enormous significance to the fact that
74 countries abstained in the General Assembly vote on the Arab
proposal to send the separation fence to the international
court.
In
total, counting the countries that did not vote, as well as those
that voted against the Arab proposal, 101 member-states - a majority
of UN member s - were not in favor of the issue going to The
Hague.
Syria,
one of the top state-supporters of terrorism, sits on the U.N.
Security Council while Libya, another state-supporter of
international terror, s its as Chair of the U.N. Human Rights
Committee.
If
the U.N. wants to maintain any credibility at all it will stop the
effort immediately. Otherwise it is crystal clear that the morally
and politically bankrupt and motivated organization is bent on
self-destruction, much like its predecessor, the League of Nations
eventually.
As
a matter of law, the International Court of Justice, headquartered
in The Hague, Netherlands must honestly dismiss the case against
Israel’s right to protect its citizens and build a barrier and
bridge to peace through separation and a negotiation process rather
than through political pressure an d terror.
Only
then can PEACE be achieved!!!
The
international community can not afford to straddle the fence on this
very important issue as it can set a very dangerous precedent. | 
