Thursday, July 09, 2009

On International Law Corrupted

Eli Hertz posts:

In many respects, the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Israel's security barrier does not deserve to be dignified by a learned rebuttal...Nevertheless, the ICJ's opinion needs to be addressed not only due to the biased manner in which it weighed the 'evidence', but also due to the evidence it failed to examine...

The Opinion is so sloppy that it wants the reader to believe that the League of Nations document - the 1922 "Mandate for Palestine" that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea - was the founding document for Palestinians' self-determination!..in essence, the ICJ 'converted' the "Mandate for Palestine" from the machinery for creating a Jewish Homeland into a founding document for Palestinian Self-Determination.

...The Opinion is so devious that it 'found' the need to selectively quote from the 1970 GA Resolution 2625: "Emphasized that 'No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.'" But the Court hides from the reader that the same Resolution subsequently clarifies that: "Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful." [E.E.H., such as in Self-Defence] "Furthermore, no one has taken the Court to task for the deceitful 'abridged' historical narrative they concocted which erases all references of Arab aggression during the British Mandate period (1922-1948), and through 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 as well as Israel's continuing fight of self-defence against Palestinian terrorism.

Another case of doctored use of historical documents: The Court states that Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasized, among other things, the call for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The ICJ misleads the readers by simply removing from this principle the need, as stated in Resolution 242, for withdrawal to "secure and recognized boundaries" that will not invite future Arab aggression...

1 comment:

maxidus sex shop said...

Thank you for your article, pretty worthwhile material.