Hypocrisy at its Best
Last week, the international Court of Justice in
The Hague condemned Israel for the Wall it built to protect its citizens from
suicide bombers infiltrating into Israel from the West Bank.
Does any legal mind in the civilized society believe
that someone who acted as a lawyer for a party can judge between that party and
its adversary? Well, the International Court of Justice does think so. Judge
Nabil Elaraby headed the Egyptian delegation to the Taba negotiations with Israel,
after being the agent of the Egyptian government to the Egyptian – Israeli arbitration
tribunal [the taba dispute]. Egypt was also a party to the proceedings
in The Hague. So judge Elaraby who acted for one party [Egypt] against another
party [Israel], serves today as the judge between these two parties [Egypt and Israel].
Israel’s motion to disqualify the honorable judge was dismissed.
Security Fence Near Jerusalem |
The Honorable court had to have “facts finding”.
This was provided, not objectively, but by dossiers prepared including “several
reports based on site visits by special rapporteurs competent organs of the UN”.
Indeed, the reports were so “objective” it enabled the court a detailed account
of the sufferings of the Palestinians. Oh yes? The bombing? The 900 dead in the
streets of Israel? The hospitals full of life crippled people? The damage to property
within Israel? No. Not a single “fact finding” about why the wall was built.
The honorable court then summarized the
historical facts. The UN resolution 181(II) known as the plan of partition of Palestine
to two independent states. “The Arab States – the court’s decision summarizes”
rejected this plan, contemding that it was unbalanced. Or was it because the
Arab States simply refused to recognize any Jewish state in the area? But the
court’s decision has to retain its objectivity, and so the total refusal to have
any Jewish state in the area was worded by the honorable court as an issue of ‘’unbalanced
division’’.
Zalli Jaffe
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה