| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine |
| UN court 'was hijacked' by foes of Jewish state |
| 2004-07-12 |
| Part I Chris Wattie National Post, with files from news services Ruling on Israeli fence rejected Canada, the United States and other Western nations yesterday rejected a world court ruling that declared Israel's 700-kilometre-long security fence in the West Bank illegal. The "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which carries no legal weight, drew praise from Palestinian and Arab spokesmen and condemnation from other countries that said the United Nations' highest court had no mandate to rule on the issue. Shimon Fogel, head of the Canada-Israel Committee, said the court allowed itself to be used by anti-Israeli groups and its ruling focused only on Palestinian grievances over the barrier. "The world court was hijacked by the anti-Israel forces, who were using the court for their own narrow, partisan purposes," he said. "They're abusing the institution and undermining the credibility of the court." Mr. Fogel said the real goal of the legal effort was to further isolate Israel. "It's of no practical value in advancing peace whatsoever ... it's going to be one more futile, meaningless gesture in a long line of futile, meaningless gestures." The International Court of Justice ruled 14-1 that the barrier, a network of electric fencing, barbed wire and concrete walls that is still under construction, violates international law and that parts of it should be torn down. "The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments," said presiding judge Shi Jiuyong, of China. The court said the security fence "gravely infringes a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the occupied area" and called for Israel to pay compensation for damage caused by its construction, parts of which cut deep into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. The only dissenting vote was cast by U.S. Judge Thomas Buergenthal, who wrote the court should have taken more note of Israel's security concerns. "The nature of these ... [terrorist] attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the court," he wrote. "Without this examination the findings made are not legally well founded." Israel boycotted the world court's hearings when they began last February and dismissed the final decision as "one-sided." |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #51 "UN court ’was hijacked’ by foes of Jewish state" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it was organized and run by foes of Jewish state? The whole thing is a force for evil, not good. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2004-07-12 6:25:21 PM |
| #50 Now now Zenster, We all know LH here - sensible discussion is his trademark (under sometimes quite intense pressure). As to missing Mrs T - well, it's just about plausible, and his comment was quite open. Calling LH a Morlock is extreme IMHO. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-07-12 6:09:24 PM |
| #49 #37 - LH, you're a dude :) #38 - As to the PM not being allowed to be a Roman Catholic - I did not know that. In my humble opinion, I don't think it makes a tinkers toss difference. We did have a little 'altercation' with the Church of Rome around the time of Henry the Eight, but in general, religion is not seen as an issue in this country. If you're in the CofE over here. you're seen as someone who thinks there probably is a God, but isn't too bothered about going to church on a Sunday. Is this bad? Maybe to some, but the point is, generally, we don't kill each other over it (witness Hair, Life of Brian, The Last Temptation of Christ and Mel Gibsons' last work - noone died) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-07-12 5:59:43 PM |
| #48 Or just the after effects of caving this weekend? Well, you certainly do not come across as the usual troglodyte, Liberalhawk. Morlock, maybe, but not a trog. How someone here at Rantburg possibly could overlook Reagan's political paramour is beyond me. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-12 5:26:02 PM |
| #47 The whole "no Catholic monarchs" thing came out of the James II / William of Orange thing, didn't it? |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-07-12 4:40:29 PM |
| #46 Thanks, Bulldog (aherm..) |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 2:34:46 PM |
| #45 Yeah, when will the Royals apologize for their over-reaction? Sheesh, one little Scottish Queen-pretender and the poor Followers of Cathol get axed from the list. Compensation! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-12 2:15:38 PM |
| #44 I was being sar-car-stick! A Catholic can be PM just as a Catholic can be an MP, so can a Sikh, Muslim, lunatic - and they are. A Catholic can't presently be monarch, or married to the monarch, so they can't be Head of State. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 2:11:30 PM |
| #43 LOL LH! I could hear the gears a slipping! :) I expect they still don't allow Papist dogs to be the Monarch tho... is that still in force? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-12 2:09:13 PM |
| #42 Yup, no catholic monarchs. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 2:05:55 PM |
| #41 And everyone kept quiet when Tony Blair pondered conversion... I wonder why? Is that true? Where's it say so? We can have a jew but not a catholic? How come I not know this? Is someone pulling my leg? |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 2:04:46 PM |
| #40 I thought it was just that a Catholic cant be the monarch. Im pretty sure that "Catholic emancipation" which opened up offices to Catholics in the 19thc didnt exclude the PM. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-12 2:00:54 PM |
| #39 Is that right John? Gosh, you'd better tell someone in Whitehall - I think we've mislaid that law somewhere. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 1:37:21 PM |
| #38 A Catholic cannot be British PM. It is against the law. |
| Posted by: John Simmins 2004-07-12 1:28:39 PM |
| #37 oy vey - a mental block maybe? Or just the after effects of caving this weekend? I HUMBLY confess to having overlooked the Iron Lady, the milk snatcher, the conquerer of the Malvinas, HERSELF, Margaret Thatcher, Baronness of Whatever. Hits self on head repeatedly. Of what does it avail thee to know about mid 19thc Brit politics, if you cant even rember Thatcher? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-12 1:21:27 PM |
| #36 She always claimed to be a woman. Think she was born one too. You'd have to ask her kids about that... ;) |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 12:06:31 PM |
| #35 Woman PM? Like Thatcher? |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-07-12 11:58:00 AM |
| #34 I'll take "Malvinas ass-kicking and Galtieri" for $400, Alex |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-12 11:56:51 AM |
| #33 Think LH, think... |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 11:49:50 AM |
| #32 bulldog and others - I wasnt being critical - Given history, the population mix of the UK, and the role of the PM (as advisor to the monarch) in the CoE, its not really surprising to me that UK would have had only Protestant PM's (in modern times) Just curious, thats all. Woman PM??? Who, when? Disraeli - i thought someone would mention him. While that was an admirable example of Britain's freedom from racism and ethnic bigotry, and he certainly had pride in his Jewish origin, he was DEFINITELY CoE, and whatever beliefs were in his heart, being CoE was certainly part of his political persona. Which is what I was getting at. I presume you HAVE had "dissenter" (non CoE Protestant) PM's. Ramsey McDonald?? How did that play out wrt to the constitutional relationship of PM, throne, and CoE? Of course if you elect Michael Howard, (who IIUC is Jewish by faith, as well as origin) THAT will be an historic moment. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-12 11:46:37 AM |
| #31 Well, I'm not having it then. If I can't call a druid a hippy in my own country then it's a sad day. My Grandfather fought in Two World Wars etc etc etc [to fade...] |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 11:11:24 AM |
| #30 Hamza was patently guilty of inciting racial hatred long before the government moved on him. I think the problem there wasn't that the laws weren't there to deal with him, but that the authorities took too long finding the cojones to act. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 11:07:34 AM |
| #29 Could it have taken Abu Hamza off the streets sooner? |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 10:59:27 AM |
| #28 Howard - not really, methinks. Assault and robbery are already criminal acts, so why elevate such attacks to something the little thugs would be proud of? No need to give them opportunity to see themselves as 'martyrs'. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 10:57:44 AM |
| #27 But useful against this? http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?ID=37805&D=7/12/2004 |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 10:54:19 AM |
| #26 Salman Rushdie would've been in the shit if this law existed 15 years ago. Ref: Rowan Atkinson's (?)comments on 'The Life of Brian.' Totally unworkable - another proposed tool to aid the fundies and bash the majority. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 10:51:48 AM |
| #25 See this yesterday, Tony? I predict it'll be one of NuLabour's harebrained schemes that withers after a day or two. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 10:44:01 AM |
| #24 Tony - I don't think that law'll ever make it to the books, do you? It wouldn't last a week if if did - totally unworkable. The popular backlash would rock the British Isles the moment someone was taken to court by an intolerant Muslim... It wouldn't be good news for majority of Muslims, at all. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 10:36:35 AM |
| #23 LH - we've had Jewish (and may have another coming up) and female PMs. What more do you want?!! Zoroastrian? Gay TV Patagonian? We've got a blind Home Secretary (Blunkett)... But I don't think we've ever had a Catholic PM. Nothing constitutilnal to prevent it though. I happen to know a Catholic who's hoping to run for a Parliamentary seat at the next election. He could go far - I'll let you know if he ever makes it to the top! Cherie is Catholic, and Blair's kids are being raised Catholic, apparenlty. There have been rumours that Blair may convert. I suspect he might have done that if he hadn't been PM, and hasn't done so, so as not to raise unwanted publicity about his fairly intense religious beliefs. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 10:31:44 AM |
| #22 hi antiwar! :) |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2004-07-12 10:31:12 AM |
| #21 Yet more anti-Israeli diatribe from an inconsequential kangaroo court. I stopped believing in 'internationalism' a while ago - due to obscene circuses such as the Durban 'conference'. The way the UN behaved after 9/11 didn't help either, nor did the revelations over the Oil-for-Food scandal. LH, I don't know about Roman Catholic PMs, but the most famous Jewish PM was Disraeli. As for Blair 'a pox upon him' - I'm sure I don't care what religion that man practices. That last comment may seem a bit harsh to our American cousins who appreciate us standing by you, but you *must* remember that Blair is a reconstructed (one could say crypto) socialist, who is giving our country away to Brussels piecemeal. His government is also rushing through legislation to make criticising Islam a hate-crime - hundreds of years of free speech being obliterated without as much as a bye-your-leave. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-07-12 10:30:04 AM |
| #20 Disraeli: He was Britain's first, and thus far only, Jewish Prime Minister. He was born to a Jewish family and baptized a Christian, but nevertheless continued to think of himself a Jew. http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/b/be/benjamin_disraeli.html |
| Posted by: ed 2004-07-12 10:23:01 AM |
| #19 I recommend observer read a book on the history of Britain, 1500 to present. BTW, has UK ever had a ROMAN CATHOLIC PM? (Blairs wife is RC, isnt she - but Blair is CoE, no?) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-12 10:16:48 AM |
| #18 Our friend observer comes from another universe. In this universe, anti Israel, anti America, Jew hatred, Islamic supremacy propaganda plays over the intercom 24 hours a day. In this universe, Moslem are never guilty of anything, they are always victims. In this universe, Israel bombs itself to blame it on the Palestinians. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-12 10:01:21 AM |
| #17 Yea oserver they can. Just get enough ppl to vote for you and you can be all of the above. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2004-07-12 9:58:09 AM |
| #16 Observer,how can you observe anything with your eyes closed?I would say more but everybody beat me to it. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-07-12 9:11:15 AM |
| #15 You think the name Joe Lieberman would ring a bell for our 'Observer'? Nah. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-07-12 8:53:13 AM |
| #14 Don't get me started... who be this Observer-fucktard? |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-07-12 8:30:28 AM |
| #13 Can a protestant be a British prime-minister? Observer - what the hell are you talking about? Are you having a joke, or what? Don't come here if you've only got nonsense to contribute. Our current PM is protestant, you ignorant fool! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 8:26:55 AM |
| #12 Observer yes they can, but like everyone else who becomes a leader of true democratic nation, they must prove themselves (excluding russia, don't know much about the russians) you must be new here, plenty of people here, myself included think Condi Rice would make an excellent US president (FYI black & female & religion=noidea) where did the jew comment come from anyway? antisemite is a european problem... |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2004-07-12 8:15:25 AM |
| #11 Bulldog, A hypocrite is a person who preaches something and does the opposite. Can a black, a Jew, a Muslim, a Woman be a president of the United States? Can a catholic be a Russian president? Can a protestant be a British prime-minister? |
| Posted by: Observer 2004-07-12 7:55:20 AM |
| #10 Observer, yes they do, and Iraq even has a few hundred Jews, who keep very quiet for fear of pogroms. But I doubt a Jew, Christian, Hindi, Buddhist, etc, can go to Muslim countries and get citizenship as millions of Muslims have done in non-Muslim countries. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-07-12 7:44:57 AM |
| #9 What about Morocco, Egypt, and Tunis (to name a few)? They all have citizens with different religions! |
| Posted by: Observer 2004-07-12 7:30:27 AM |
| #8 How many churches have been built in Saudi Arabia, Observer? How many synagogues? And how many mosques are there in Israel; how many churches? You're a hypocrite, aren't you? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-12 7:27:44 AM |
| #7 Yes they can. There are over a million Israeli Arab, Druse and Beduin citizens. They vote and run for government. Try to get Saudi citizenship if you are anything but a Muslim (and probably only Sunni at that). Try to get naturalized citizenship in any Muslim country if you are a Jew. Heck, it would be interesting to try to get naturalized citizenship in any Muslim country if you are any religion but Muslim. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-07-12 7:25:17 AM |
| #6 "UN court ’was hijacked’ by foes of Jewish state" A question about the Jewish state? Can a Christian or a Muslim become a citizen there? Is Israel the only country in the world where your religion determines your citizenship? |
| Posted by: Observer 2004-07-12 7:12:29 AM |
| #5 Bottom line---who funds this kangaroo court? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-07-12 3:22:48 AM |
| #4 There didn't seem to be much of a struggle with the "hijackers." Stockholm Syndrome. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-07-12 2:47:17 AM |
| #3 And thrice. UN court ’was hijacked’ by foes of Jewish state There didn't seem to be much of a struggle with the "hijackers." |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-12 2:12:46 AM |
| #2 Shove it twice |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-12 1:30:06 AM |
| #1 "UN court ’was hijacked’ by foes of Jewish state" And that would be precisely the same set of foes that gave us the so-called "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" which was held in Durban, South Africa from August 31st to September 7th, 2001. Remember that? The endless stream of anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda that spewed forth? The Der Stürmer-style political cartoons about Jews that were passed around by the Arab delegates? A few days after the conference ended, came 9/11. As I watched the towers fall, it occurred to me: this is "Durban by other means." The International Court of Justice can take its ruling and shove it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-07-12 1:20:46 AM |