It's the Jiuuus!

I really had my fingers crossed in hopes that Israel would win this one.

I want a quote from the dissenting opinion...

Mary says the UN World Court must go...

It's cute that the "International Criminal Court" thinks their opinion matters. Makes me want to donate a couple bails of razor wire and some concrete to the Israelis.

Build faster!

Err, make that "World Court" in my previous post. Although, that name makes them sound even fruitier, if such a thing were possible.

And this is a surprise to, who, exactly? Jew hatred is staging a big comeback, and denying the Jews their only defense against terror attack is a natural part of the agenda of the UN General Assembly.

Oh crud here it comes.

We all know where this is going. The el cubo conspiracy nuts will say this was done intentionally to hide something. Ughh.

Ah, the World (Kangaroo) Court, a politicized group of halfwits who believe that they have legal authority in the world. This is almost as laughable as the ICC believing that it has the right to put US "war criminals" on trial.

Recommendation to Israel: Build the fence higher and electrify the f*cker.

“The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,” said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China as he read out the ruling.

How would he know? They didn't allow testimony from
victims of terror bombings. And who is China to speak
against having a wall to keep enemies out??

“The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law.”

International Law #1
Jews shall not have the right of self-defense

International Law #2
Those who attack Jews may not, therefore, be
punished under international law

International Law #3
Those who attempt to restrain others from attacking
Jews are therefore themselves guilty of
breaking International Law #2 (see above)

Got it?

Pathetic. As if this was not unexpected.

Like they really have jurisdiction.

Next will comes the standard condemnation from the UN General Assembly which is as equally worthless as the ruling from the Kangaroo Court.

After that is ignored, they will try to impose sanctions and penalties via the UN Security Council. Hopefully, the US will just announce veto before they waste any time debating the ruling.

Heaven forbid a wall be permitted to stand that makes it more difficult for spodleydopes to kill Jews...

the barrier violated international humanitarian law

But allowing human bombs to kill Israelis isn''t covered by those laws. How special.

Actually "International Criminal Court" fits as it is mainly composed of criminals. Let's see, the "decision" was announced by China, who has invaded an conqured Tibet, murdered many Tibetans and moved (unwilling) Chinese immigrants into the country to take over, broken its word (though who expected different behavior) to the citizens of Hong Kong, ...

#10 - ya beat me to it... and by far better expressed.

I'm really surprised considering the fair and balanced approach the UN has taken with Israel in the past...

It's official: blowing up Jews is a basic human right!

::spit::

“The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,” said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China as he read out the ruling.

Anyone else see the irony here?

“The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,” said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China as he read out the ruling.

It has, however, proved pretty good at lessening the risk of terrorist attacks...

I'll say it again-- How can we expect the Israelis to osirak the Iranian reactors for us if they're busy pulling down the Fence? How about the Palestinians pay compensation for the homicide bombing deaths and actual cold-blooded murders of civilians?
Why is this happening now? Can it mean the Fence is working?

"The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,” said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China. "Hell, just do what we did in Tibet," he continued. "Genocide is cheaper and much more effective. You never heard of a Tibetan suicide bomber, did you?"

Oh, I'm totally surprised by this decision!

Does non-binding mean irrelevant?

YAWN

Some more Mullah 'Justice'

July 7, 2004
THE ARAB LAWYERS FEDERATION ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTIONS TO TRY PRESIDENT BUSH, BRITISH P.M. BLAIR AND ISRAELI P.M. SHARON FOR WAR CRIMES THAT 'THEY COMMITTED IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND PALESTINE.' THE TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 15 IN CAIRO, EGYPT. (AKHBAR AL-KHALEEJ, BAHRAIN, 7/6/04)

[Link: www.memri.org...]

Also of interest, Ariel and Osamma have been collaborating again.

July 8, 2004
PRINCE TURKI AL-FAISAL, THE SAUDI AMBASSADOR TO BRITAIN, REITERATED CROWN PRINCE ABDALLAH'S STATEMENTS THAT ZIONISTS ARE BEHIND ATTACKS IN SAUDI ARABIA: 'SPECIFICALLY SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, THE KINGDOM HAS BEEN A CENTER FOR CONCENTRATED MERCILESS ATTACKS BY THE ZIONISTS… UNDERSTANDING THIS ATTACK COMES FROM THE ZIONISTS AND FROM AL-QAIDA…' (SAUDI GAZETTE, 7/7/04)

thusly, israel should build it higher, wider and faster. a big FU to the IJC

Condor said "And who is China to speak against having a wall to keep enemies out??" ROFL!!! So true. Thanks for the laugh. Perhaps Israel should build the fence high enough to be seen from space.
Who gives a rat's ashes what the World Court thinks.

I wonder if they will go after those barriers in along the:

US - Mexico border
N.Ireland - Ireland border
Saudi - Yemen border
India - Pakistan border
N Korea - S. Korea border

etc.

Please stop referring it to a "kangaroo court,'' as it is an insult to our marsupial friends.

Sounds like somebody (Israel) needs to pull an Andrew Jackson.

That is, tell the court to enforce their own decision (because they can't :/).

Then laugh in their faces. A lot.

For as much as the "World Court" matters, I could convene the same hearing in my back yard using a few old crates and scrap wood as the "bench", and charge legal fees in beer currency...and I'd still have as much "authority" as these clowns.

OT - It's Friday and time for VDH - Civilization vs. Trivia

Hey world court, send in your troops...oh yeah, that's right, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY...not that you have the balls to actually send them if you did. Keep whining Europussies...it's falling on deaf ears at this point...when you can get off your asses and do something about *real* genocide and terror, then we can talk...until then...

WELCOME TO SOVEREIGNTY!!!

Israel: Well get right on it. Tomorrow starting around 8ish were sorry we’ve upset you and the terrorists.

//sarcasm

Question. Does any government pay attention to any world court rulings if it goes against there interest?

Not unexpected, but damn.

It is the result of having a rational mind to ask "But, why are they doing such a thing?" It's the answer of a rational mind to say "Because they can; because who it affects by doing it are Jews."

It sounds like a broken record, but as long as it still happens, it will be true.

A few years ago, at a nondenominational institution of "higher learning" in DC, it was alleged to me that Jews has become part of the "white majority," and because of this, weren't able to claim that they were the subject of bigotry. It was bullsh*th then, and it's bullsh*t now.

Why to Jews vote for Democrats that have increasingly moved Left (e.g., from Truman's immediate recognition of Israel to the two-harpy hug under Clinton's watch)? Probably two reasons: for my grandmother's generation, they probably haven't realized that the party has "shifted out from under them" and no longer is as it was. For my generation: uninformed or uncaring about the plight of Jews at the mercy of the rabidly anti-Jew world Leftists.

Lysander.

In a non-binding opinion ...

Um, so in essence, the court is useless since almost 99 percent of its opinions are non-binding.

What a circle jerk.

Five of the 15 judges are from the European Union.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

Waddya expect? Europe is still trying to finish off what they started 60, oop's no some 500 years ago.

My response to the moonbats at the Hague - Go F*ck a Muslim virgin!

I love how the President is from China, a country that built THE great wall and has annexed Tibet.

As a marsupial-American, I object to the use of the term "kangaroo court".

Oh wait, I just looked up marsupial. You have to have a POUCH. I thought paunch.

It's just no fun for the jew-haters anymore, now that the Pali's can't just slaughter the Israelis with impunity.

I think the United States should have it's own tribunal to determine if the ICJ is an anti-democratic institution whose edicts should automatically be vetoed when the UN tries to implement sanctions based upon their decisions.

By vetoing every ruling they make, good or (mostly) bad, we can send a lesson of the uselessness of an entity that exists solely as a political weapon against those countries that exist for the rule of law, rather than rule by the subjugation of their societies to their tyranny.

In short, this particular "court" can kiss my grits.

#27

Already done. A couple of us at work have declared the World Court racist and demanded they pay me reparations. As soon as I receive payment, I'm going to Israel.

I'm just wondering if the World Court is part of the UN or is it an independent entity. Why should it have any authority when none of its members were elected by anyone?

[Link: 64.4.46.250:80...]

Check that out!!!

Andrew B.

Israel is Real

#35 And cites the Geneva Convention on laws the apply to his country (which has blatantly violated them), and are inapplicable to israel's situation as long as israel isnt forceably transfering the palestinian population out, or israelis in...

What a joke. "International Criminal" Court indeed

Is it me? or does the name "WORLD COURT" sound Orwellian to you???

Andrew B.

Israel is Real

This is a nonbinding advisory opinion concerning a political issue, and it was done in the wrong venue and without taking into account Israel's need to defend its children from suicide bombers.

Since it is a political issue, it should have taken into account all of the political aspects, including Israel's needs, not only Pali desires. But it only examined the issue through a Pali filter.

It amounts to a diversion from the basic fact that the Pali Authority still has not done, or even agreed to do, the basic roadmap obligation in the first stage of the roadmap: "dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure".

The kangaroo court simply wants to support the terrorists by augmenting their capabilities, by removing Israel's protective fence (a quarter of which has been completed), and preventing the completion of the anti-terror fence.

Although their report uses the word "humanitarian", clearly they have excluded the right to life for Israeli Jewish children. To the kangaroo court, this is not part of humanitarian rights. Perhaps they have been persuaded by the judeophobic Egyptian and Jordanian judges on their panel that the Jews are just apes and pigs, and therefore they are excluded from "humanitarian" considerations.

And the World Court counts for what again?

Makes me want to print off some bumper stickers and sell them in Israel:

"My IDF soldier beat up your World Court"

OT - This is kind of funny

Islamist gunmen threaten to behead Hussein's lawyers

They want to behead his LAWYERS, all those bloodsucking terrorist enablers coming over in droves to defend Saddam as a means of spiting the Bush administration. Wonder if these Islamists are just unhappy with Saddam's secularist rule, or if they are on our side? I'm betting the former...

Learn the Truth about Islam

I guess Chinese justice is like a Chinese meal... Two hours later you just want more... badda-BING

Condor (#10) Exactly right. And while we're on the subject of China voicing an opinion on human rights, let's not forget that we're just a month past the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

When China approaches democracy, I might consider their opinion on human rights remotely relevant.

I feel for the Palestinians- I really do. It's such a dreadful hardship not to be able to blow yourself up on a school bus...

here's what I wrote about these villains with robes (reposted but good enough to repost):

While Palestinian genocide bombers blew up busses, they were silent.
While the Palestinians targeted civilians, they made not a peep.
When Israel dared defend herself, they flew into a rage, "by what right do you dare to not allow yourselves to be murdered?"
They had no jurisdiction, no right to make a ruling, so they conferred it upon themselves from thin air.
There was no law that said what Israel was doing was wrong, so they said there was such law.
Since the route of the fence was a political and security question, they ignored Israel's arguments and asserted their "superior knowledge" over the wisdom of the leaders of a beleaguered democracy and the commanders of the best small army in the world.
Before the testimony was even begun, the verdict was decided.
Before the legal arguments begun, the punishment was predetermined.
The court took testimony and legal arguments from nations whose courts and judges are jokes.

"Here Jews, here is our justice!" It is the justice of Dreyfus, from Judges of nations without justice. "We are the people who stood silently or applauded while you were murdered." It is the justice of countries that long ago drove their Jews out and the justice of countries Jews now flee.

I spit upon their Dred Scot decision. In the last six months, only once have I read about my co-religionists being blown up by these mobile eisatzgruppen, if this fence that is proven to have saved lives, is immoral and illegal to these creatures, then surely it is the right thing to do. The essence of this court's decision is the very purpose of the fence, saving Jewish lives, is the actual harm and wrong this court seeks to redress. Israel told the court it built the fence to protect her people; the fence protects her people with minimal harm to others. This is the greatest legal sin of all: being Jewish and right.

Adolf Hitler would oppose the fence; so did this court. This decision is nothing less than the reimposition of the Nuremburg Laws under color of International law.

I close with same words Natan Sharansky had for his kangaroo court: "Next Year in Jerusalem! L'shana haba'ah b'yerushalayim!"

It was popular from the 'Age of Reason' onward to denigrate the concept of miracles. The thinking is that if reason couldn't explain something in the past, it was considered a myth or a legend. Not real.

It doesn't make sense that so many freedom loving countries hate Israel and like the oppressive arab dictators. Maybe it's all about oil. Maybe not.

Miracles can hurt also like in the case where the Egyptians drown chasing Moses across the Red Sea. Miracles can bring good and bad.

This ruling defies reason as does all the legislation the UN passes against Israel. It's a bad miracle that Israel is persecuted again once more and I fear it ballooning into even more hatred.

Isn't it cute? A bunch of petty bureaucrats who think they matter. What are they going to do if Israel doesn't comply, throw a fit? Have an extra martini over lunch?

The best part of this all is, the more uninforced decisions they hand down, the less relevant they are. (Of course, that's assuming they have any relevance to start with...)

Did anyone--anywhere-- in the world lose any money betting on this decision?

Nope, not a surprise here.

And if, G-d forfend, the Iranians or somebody actually managed to pull off an attack that did fatal damage to Israel, no doubt the court would weigh in with an expression of extreme displeasure, or some other piece of tripe. Perhaps a strong "Oooops!"

"If only the Jews would just go away" seems to be the cry here - but, since nobody really wants them (US excepted, and that only fairly recently) it really translates to "If only the Jews didn't exist".

I have been non-observant for years, but I remember the lessons of Nazi Germany, where belief/nonbelief made no difference - what counted (and killed) was Jewish blood. Somehow, I think the Islamists and militant Arabs and Muslims feel the same way.

As events develop, I find in myself a stronger sense of "tribal identity" for lack of a better term. And, despite any errors Israel may have made in her 56 years, I identify with her and I will support her in any way I can.

After all, what other country in the world - at any point in time - can show the record of achievements, of humanitarian efforts, of contributions to world knowledge, or of sheer survival skills in a similar period of time? Being human, no doubt there have been errors in polity, but taken in the balance Israel is indeed a "shining light unto the world"!

Europeans are not through with the Jews yet.

OT

In connected with American barbarity in Iraq, Al-Reuters revisits the horrors of world war 2 death camps. You know, the ones where Americans starved and tortured poor innocent German soldiers and camp guards.

[Link: www.reuters.co.uk...]

#45 Bob G.

*rimshot*

I think it's time for us to declare a special session of the World Lizardoid Court. I hereby bang the Lizard Gavel and declare this session open! Now, who wants to make the opening arguments?

Ayatollah Ghilmeini and Tish: Bravo.

#43 EE: Good points, but I would take it further. The PA has not followed, and has never had any intention of following the roadmap. The Fence is becoming a power to force the PA into compliance by preventing terrorist operations, so it must be gotten rid of.

STATEMENT TO THE UNITED NATIONS AFRICAN MEETING IN SUPPORT OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

You have to read this shit...

#55 Cousin Dave

I'll speak for the Israel faction...

*clears his throat* Jooos bad. Very bad. Thank you.

#59 Targetpractice

Gak, I meant anti-Israel faction.

PIMF...PIMF...PIMF...

(#3) crill

I want a quote from the dissenting opinion...

Summaryof the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 (scroll down for the dissent summary).

This page has the separate opinions.

Here's the opening of Buergenthal's dissent:

1. Since I believe that the Court should have exercised its discretion and declined to render the requested advisory opinion, I dissent from its decision to hear the case. My negative votes with regard to the remaining items of the dispositif should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree. However, I am compelled to vote against the Court’s findings on the merits because the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case. In reaching this conclusion, I am guided by what the Court said in Western Sahara, where it emphasized that the critical question in determining whether or not to exercise its discretion in acting on an advisory opinion request is “whether the Court has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to arrive at a judicial conclusion upon any disputed questions of fact the determination of which is necessary for it to give an opinion in conditions compatible with its judicial character” (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, pp. 28‑29, para. 46). In my view, the absence in this case of the requisite information and evidence vitiates the Court’s findings on the merits.

OT - or is news about a genocidal Jew-hater off topic?

Britain is not going to expel the evil Sheikh Al-Qaradawi

Meanwhile, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to take action based on evidence supplied by police.

BBC headline - "Cleric urges tolerance amid row"

They really, really can't see anything wrong with what he says. In fact, they are using it as an excuse to keep wheeling out a ranting Arab who spews out the excuse that it's alright to carry out suicide bombings against Israel because the Palestinians are completely unarmed (!)

I saw this story orginally via the Drudge Report link. While I wasn't surprised at the verdict, I was surprised at the illistrations.

That's right, two of the three pictures are of "Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews" protesting AGAINST the barrier.

Rhetorically speaking, shouldn't they print some photos of Palestinean Muslims who support the wall?

When that happens I plan to be skiing in hell.

#53 Morgan

WOW!

Who will sink lower - the French or al Reuters?

disgusting isn't it?

I heard two of the U.N.'s former employees were threaten with possible termination due to their criticism of the U.N.

U.N. can't be criticized?

Oh.. I forgot, the U.N. is not democratic in nature but a totalitarian.

This Pali SOB came on and say its morally wrong for Israel. Imagine that. A Muslim..

The World Court said Israel's barrier in the West Bank should be torn down and called on the United Nations Friday to stop a project it said had illegally imposed hardship on thousands of Palestinians.

That's funny.
By my reckoning, that means that it'll take at least a dozen years, and as many UN "binding" resolutions, and STILL nothing will happen unless the United States steps in.

Sleep soundly behind your fence, Israel. The only power the UN has over you is that which you accede to it.

Internationalist futility and irrelevance on parade.

Plato

It doesn't make sense that so many freedom loving countries hate Israel and like the oppressive arab dictators.

Some day's I get so depressed over the moral depravity of the world I just don't know what to do.

I think this is one of those days.

#55:

I call chief justice!

[Link: www.dailyreviewonline.com...]

interesting story...sort of OT but heart warming...

Andrew B.

(hat tip: Teri) lol

now i am giving hat tips for stuff I post on here...lol

Andrew B.

Israel is Real

It's very interesting that I have never had to think about the concept of sovereignty until very recently.
Apparently one Ernst Kantorowicz argued that the concept of sovereignty evolved out of the medieval conception of the Body of Christ.

It was at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that Europe consolidated its long transition from the Middle Ages to a world of sovereign states.

As the sovereign state was occupying the European continent, piece by piece, in early modern times, eventually forming the system that came to occupy the globe, contemporary political philosophers embraced this form of polity and described what made it legitimate.

Machiavelli observed the politics of city states in his Renaissance Italy and described what a prince had to do to promote a flourishing republic in terms that conferred on him supreme authority within his territory. Manifestly, he was not to be bound by natural law, canon law, Gospel precepts, or any of the norms or authorities that obligated members of Christendom. Rather, he would have to be prepared “not to be good,” and to be ready to perform evil, not because evil was no longer evil, but because it was sometimes necessary to further an end that was central for Machiavelli, an end that amounts to the unifying idea of his thought: the strength and well-ordering of the state.

Martin Luther’s political theology explained all of this. He taught that under God’s authority, two orders with two forms of government existed. “The realm of the spirit” was the order in which Christ was related to the soul of the believer. The realm of the world was the order of secular society, where civil authorities ran governmental institutions through law and coercion. Both realms furthered the good of believers, but in different senses; they were to be separately organized.

Perhaps the two most prominent attacks on sovereignty from political philosophers since World War II come from Bertrand de Jouvenel and Jacques Maritain. ... Jouvenel acknowledges that sovereignty is ... needed to quell disputes within the state and to muster cooperation in defense against outsiders. But he roundly decries the modern concept of sovereignty, which creates a power who is above the rules...

In Chapter Two of his enduring work of 1951, Man and the State, Jacques Maritain shows little sympathy for sovereignty at all, not even the qualified sympathy of Jouvenel:
It is my contention that political philosophy must get rid of the word, as well as the concept, of Sovereignty:-... not only because the concept of Sovereignty creates insuperable difficulties and theoretical entanglements in the field of international law [!] ...

As a Catholic philosopher, Maritain’s arguments run similar to Christian philosophers of early modern Europe who criticized absolute sovereignty. Witnessing the rise of the formidable entity of the state, they sought to place limits on its power and authority. They are the ancestors of those who now demand limits on the state’s authority in the name of human rights, of the right to quell genocide and disaster and deliver relief from the outside, of an international criminal court, and of a supranational entity that assumes power of governance over economic, and now, maybe, military affairs.

Here is the link.
Sovereignty: the gift of the Christians to the world? Ironic that the basis for undermining it would come from a Catholic philosopher.

Hey, the fence is needed to protect poor arab children from the murderous Jews. According to Vanessa Redgrave:

''Any Palestinian mother or schoolchild knows that a schoolchild who is dressed in the uniform can be and is frequently shot in the head -- not in the chest, not in the legs, in the head.''

link in Chicago Sun-Times

She doesn't explain why the Israeli's use snipers. I thought they traditionally kidnapped them at night to collect the blood for matzohs. /Very heavy sarcasm/

Stupid psycho bitch.

Love the wall!!

Every single day, it saves Jewish lives.
Simply walling out the vermin is working great!

Thanks, Ariel!

#66 Samurai Jack

U.N. can't be criticized?

No. See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, alinea 3.

At the World Court's official website, the languages are : English and French (getting a clue?)

Present composition of the Court

President
Shi Jiuyong (China)

Vice-President
Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)

Judges

Gilbert Guillaume (France)

Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)

Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)

Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)

Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)

Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)

Francisco Rezek (Brazil)

Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)

Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America)

Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)

Hisashi Owada (Japan)

Bruno Simma (Germany)

Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

Registrar

Mr. Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)

Twenty-one cases are currently pending:

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)

2. Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

3. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo)

4 - 11. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium) (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada) (Serbia and Montenegro v. France) (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany) (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy)(Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands) (Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal) (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom)

12. Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda)

13. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia and Montenegro)

14. Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)

15. Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany)

16. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

17. Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)

18. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application : 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)

19. Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France)

20. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Bau Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)

21. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for Advisory Opinion)

I see the court is all broken up about France's looting and wholesale slaughter in the Congo. Looks like they're going to get to the bottom of the wanton murder in the former Yugoslavia too.

Yet, all they can focus on is a tiny country who in self-defense errected a barrier to prevent the surrounding murderous terrorists from indescriminantly blowing up its citizens. Makes perfect sense. Thank G-d the U.S. representative was the "lone" dissentor.

In solidarity with the people of Israel, the Bubbaman has decided to make his summer vacation there. I urge you do the same.

F*ck the EU - I ain't giving you sh-t!

.Tsahal's spokesman specified that the Israeli aerial units destroyed two weapon factories in the Gaza strip. These plants were used by terrorist factions to produce Qassam rockets.

Good article about an Israeli Mission...

Andrew B.

...cannot be justified by (...) or by the requirements of national security...

I don't know in China but right here keeping out barbarians with intention to kill every last one of your kind *is* a national security requirement.

Wait a minute, I do! What was that long fortified wall for, keeping the Mongols out?

Arab nations seek barrier destruction. The better to get on with their Israel destruction.

I used to think the UN was just as useless as the League of Nations.

At least the League went through the motions ofcondemning Italian aggression against Ethiopia, unlike these scum who don't think the Israelis should defend themselves. Build the wall thick and firm, guys, electrify it and blow away anyone who approaches it from the Pali side.

so...if this opinion was written by a chinese judge...um...you think they'll be another opinion a few hours from now

#53 Morgan

Oh, cry me a river. When we found Dachau we put the SS up against a wall and machine-gunned the lot of them.

I am sooo confident when the Chinese pontificate on human rights issues.

#72 Ghost

Apparently one Ernst Kantorowicz argued that the concept of sovereignty evolved out of the medieval conception of the Body of Christ.

Um, Persia? Rome? China? Japan? India?

But I'm just a shtupd 'merikan

 [Link: www.thejewishweek.com...]

Rise in Black Anti-Semitism in France...

Oh yeah it gets better...

Andrew B.

Israel is Real

#75 Mr Pol

WOW.
I would have never had believed that, had you not linked it. Absolutely freakin' amazing. Thanks.

Article 29
3.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

#86 RIP Ford

In Nazi Germany, anybody could say something nice about Hitler and nobody would consider punishing them. The U.N. is not really different.

OT: Cool story from Israel about an all-Druse IDF Batallion protecting the northen border.

Yah-those Israelis...so racist!

/LLLa LLLa LLLand

Some comments about this desecration on my blog.

Did the Chinese judge even mention the apartheid barrier otherwise known as the Great Wall of China?

#87 Mr Pol

I can't believe that anything they do would surprise me any longer. But, there you have it. I'm floored. I can't believe that they actually wrote it out.

This decision is exactly what Europe negotiated with the House of Saud in January

I just read the dissenting opinion from the American jurist - very disappointing!

Since I believe that the Court should have exercised its discretion and declined to render the requested advisory opinion, I dissent from its decision to hear the case. My negative votes with regard to the remaining items of the dispositif should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree. However, I am compelled to vote against the Court’s findings on the merits because the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case.

#79 scaramouche 7/9/2004 10:51AM PST

Good link. Home rag of Rachel Crepe.
Scary effin article.

heh. C'mon, lemme see ya knock the battery off my shoulder!

#84 grayp
As I said, thinking about sovereignty is all new to me... What is the difference between having a lot of power and being sovereign? The Roman and Chinese Emperors had a lot of power... and the Chinese Emperor had the "decree of heaven"... but I've also read that China's warlords had most of the power in their localities (can't recall where; I could be wrong)... so I just don't know.
But it does seem to be a concept that is presently under attack. It's not only Israel -- if one denies, or has no respect for, the concept of sovereignty then one could justify destroying Israel or any country. To replace it with a world-wide Caliphate, let's say. A political entity wherein the people are united by their religion as opposed to their nationality and the supreme law is sharia as opposed to a Constitution.

Jew-hating Jurist Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) sums it up best in his opinion:

Few propositions in international law can be said to command an almost universal acceptance and to rest on a long, constant and solid opinio juris as the proposition that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza is one of military occupation governed by the applicable international legal régime of military occupation.

Who says that the W.C. (great acronym) of J is biased?

Perhaps Israel should appeal to a higher Judge:

For we were bondmen; yet our G_d hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our G_d, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

Ezra 9:9 - King James Version

Me (Boston) - The UN should be torn down.

#25 Bob G

Please stop referring it to a "kangaroo court,'' as it is an insult to our marsupial friends.

LOL!!

What a fricking joke the UN is.

Someone mentioned the Dred Scott decision. Maybe it is appropriate to put a portion of it here, so everyone can see that with a few changes it illustrates the hearts of muslims and many Europeans:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white (muslim/European) race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white (muslim)man was bound to respect; and that the negro (Jew Christian?) might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white (muslim) race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

#96 Ghost

But it does seem to be a concept that is presently under attack

Oh, don't get me started. I stumbled across this phom when I was researching anti-Americanism is Europe. It arises from the fear of nationalism, which in the European's mind is a fundamental cause of war.

Hence the push for the EU. Hence the German in-fighting about Germany wanting a seat on the UNSC - it should go to the EU instead.

Given that the fundamental premise of nationalism as a cause of war is wrong, the resulting attempts at a solution are almost certainly doomed to fail, barring some miraculous accident.

Did anyone know that the ISM had a book out?

Peace Under Fire: Israel, Palestine, and the International Solidarity Movement

Someone needs to write a book called Terrorists and the Terror Enablers who love them: The International Solidarity Movement.

#10 Conder

Is this the same China that imprisons Falun Gong practitioners?

Is this the Chinese using prison walls to defend themselves from religion?

/barf

#91 RIP Ford

It's an old document - adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Have a look at the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 46. They have changed the text, it's not as blunt, but it means exactly the same thing.

"Israel says world court must go" sounds better to me.

ICC huh? so that's what they call a gathering of Jew haters these days.

I think mentioning Steven Den Beste's essay on "transnationalism" is appropriate here. Everyone vaguely mentions "international law" while never justifying what that is. Judge (bull) Shi Jiuyong of China says that Israel's wall is illegal "under the applicable international humanitarian law", but he never cites any. In other words, he's bluffing. What treaties has Israel signed that would make the wall illegal? People are far removed from reality if they think the U.N. has any authority on human rights matters in the first place.

The "verdict" of the World Court was never in doubt, at least by anyone who's observed the UN/EU for even the past few years, let alone decades. The World Conference Against Racism (or was it "For Racism"? I can never remember) in 2001 is a prime example of the "fair" treatment Israel/Jews can expect from the mob.

While there's no question that the bias of the "judges" on the World Court is derived largely from anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism and moral equivalence/relativism, forces so pervasive not just within "esteemed" arbiters of justice but in so much of the Leftist world, perhaps the greatest source of bias (particularly since 9-11 and the so-called "War on Terror" ramped up) and one which even the most fair-minded people often suffer from is, indeed, the greatest motivator of all: fear.

As Winston Churchill once opined: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” And more often than not appeasment is a function of fear. Clearly, with the exception of the U.S., parts of Britain, Australia and some recently freed former captives of totalitarian regimes in "New Europe" whose first hand memories of oppression prevent them from forgetting the folly of appeasement, the rest of the world has stuck its collective head in the sand. Euroland in particular, with its millions of unassimilated, angry and often violent immigrant youth has for some time deceived itself into believing it can successfully placate the Arab/Muslim crocodile, oblivious to the fact that sooner or later Israel and the Jews, a mere hors d'oeuvre, rather than satiate it will merely whet its appetite

{Just got this in my inbox. - T.}
Please read and forward far and wide: -
Within the next 48 hours, Jews worldwide will be sending email messages to the United Nations, the EU Parliament and the EU Court of Justice with the identical message that is on this email.

PLEASE take a quick moment to copy the message below and paste it on to a new email that should be sent to the email addresses listed below:

ecu@un.org - United Nations
civis@europarl.eu.int - EU Parliament
info@curia.eu.int - EU Court of Justice

Subject:
The building of the Israeli fence

Message:

When Israel builds a fence to keep out terrorists, the UN and EU are up in arms because it makes it difficult for terrorists to kill more Jews.

When terrorists shoot (point blank!) an 8-month-pregnant Jewish woman and her 4 little girls, there is absolute silence from your organizations.

If you think your indifference goes unnoticed, count the number of messages you will receive world-wide in the next 48 to 72 hours on this matter.

The Chinese, with their Great Wall passed judgement on Israel???

Who says G-d has no sense of humor??

#102 grayp:
As for nationalism being a cause of war, perhaps human nature is a cause of war.
Can a people be a nation without having a state in which they can be sovereign? (I suppose the Jews pulled it off for 2000 years, but it's better now they have an air force :D)

The ICJ stands for the International Court Of Jerks and antisemites

A "justice" from China (one of the world's worst violator of human rights) is judging whether or not Israel (the country with perhaps the best record on human rights, when considering its situation) should be allowed to build a wall?

That is fucking (pardon my cheney) rich!

Appropos of #10 Condor's post,

This is the first recorded case in history of a Great Wall calling a Security Fence Illegal.

(Pot...Kettle, Wall...Fence work with me here :-) the decision is ridiculous and should be treated as such. ).

So what will the Useless Numbnuts do about the wall? Write up another resolution they can't enforce? Or are they going to deploy "peacekeepers" along the fence, pointing their wittle guns at the IDF forcing them to tear it down.

If they were honest they would just out and out say they want to see [bigoted word]s destroy Israel and drive the survivors into the Red Sea.

#53 Morgan: from the al-Reuters article:

Gerth said his weight fell to 110 pounds from 176 pounds in his month at Rheinberg.

Obviously this guy is a senile or a liar. He lost two pounds a day? That's about 7500 calories. Did they offer complementary liposuction? The German POW's got the same rations as the free civilian population. The reason people were starving is that there was little food on the continent and farming was severely disrupted at the end of the war. The whole population of Europe came within weeks of total starvation during the winter of '45-'46.

Of course the '49 Geneva Conventions require that POW's receive the same rations as the soldiers of the controlling power so that would be a war crime now.

Let's not mince words. This is a huge hit for our side. No Israel doesn't deserve it, and no there was no way of stopping it, but this is still a sad day and I am very depressed. I know that there will be no immediate consequences, but the fact that the World Court has given a big "FxCK You" to Israel is lame.

“The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order,” said Judge Shi Jiuyong of China as he read out the ruling.

OOpsie! Rewrite department?

Got it!

Dateline by Staff Regurgitator Riet al Rong.

"The wall ... cannot be justified under any circumstances, for any reason, because keeping out barbarians is just tasteless and very bad for the self-esteem of savages throughout the world," said Whirled Corpse Judge Shi Jiuyong of China as he admired the glossy pictures in an expensive coffe-table book on the venerable Great Wall that has sprawled across much of his country for centuries. With a heartfelt sigh and a sympathetic tear, the Judge sadly acknowledged the universal consequences of this groundbreaking virtual decision.

The Judge confirmed that the Peoples' Engineering Technology Association (PETA) will be manually dismembering the Great Wall of China, brick by brick--in the same way it was constructed to block bloodthirsty barbarian invaders--early next week, to set a good example for the "troublemakers of the Middle East". (And we all know who they are, don't we?)

When asked about the destruction delay in light of the serious nature of global savagery self-esteem issues, the Judge explained that the PETA had to finish shutting down their current project, a Kangaroo-themed Games Court, before beginning deconstruction on the Great Wall. When asked about the estimated date of destruction, the Judge shrugged and remarked that Rome wasn't burned in a day.

Man-in-the-street commentary consisted of nothing but a few shrugs and several phrases in a strange sing-song language, which this reporter transcribed as enthusiastic consent and vigorous diatribes against the zionist/mongol conspiracy. No information was available by presstime on the connection between Haliburton and Great Wall construction contract irregularities, but the translation team is working double shifts to translate classified data found on antique porcelein urns.

In a moment of touching global solidarity, this reporter managed to cut through the communication barrier. An elderly man took this reporter's hand and led me to the local foreigner's hotel, an upscale, picturesque building that is oddly juxtaposed against a generally clean but very simple cityscape.

At the hotel entrance, the old Chinese-Chinese man removed a photo from his pocket of US President Bush in Iraq with a group of people in Marine and Infantry uniforms. The Chinese-Chinese man pointed to himself, then pointed to a handsome Chinese-American in the photo who bore a marked resemblance to the older man. The Chinese-Chinese smiled broadly and said, "Bush grlate! Bush da bess!"

This reporter can only presume that the Chinese-Chinese man was trying to communicate the plight of his grandchild, "Wah He Ro," who was clearly being held in Iraq against his own will by the "great pest" of the world.

We can only hope to Gaia that the Whirled Corpse will produce a strong, stern, utterly irrelevant condemnation of the US's latest Iraqi photo attrocity.

Back to you, "Dizzy"!

P.S.: Maybe NASA can provide LGF with hourly update Radar images via Ed Moran, abu Bricklblaster!

Isreal's response shoud be to double its effort to complete that fence already. The fence should have been completed by now and I wonder why someone in Iarael is dragging it out. The fecne is working for God's sake!

EU backs West Bank wall ruling

THE HAGUE, Netherlands, July 9 (UPI) -- The EU has thrown its weight behind Friday's International Court of Justice ruling judging Israel's West Bank barrier to be illegal.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Israel had a "legitimate right to self-defense in the face of terrorist attacks." But, he added, "The wall not only results in confiscation of Palestinian land and causes untold humanitarian and economic hardship, but also could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict."

The EU's stance contrasts sharply with that of the White House, which brushed aside the judgment Friday, saying it did not think the U.N. court was the right forum to decide on the issue. The American representative on the court was also the only judge to oppose the ruling, which called on Israel to tear down the wall and offer compensation to Palestinians.

#47 ceccarelli

You beat me to it!

#116 deadman

Well, that makes the Nazi regime *so* much more attractive--starving their own people for the sake of needless power-trip fantasies.

(BTW, I think I found the problem in your figures! Your "suitcase" model might work if humans just stuck little "calorie cubes" directly to the appropriate body parts, but that isn't the real-world case. People are complex chemical manufacturing plants, so that's why the model fails. The person was subsisting off his own proteins, which increases the effect of weight loss as his total mass declines. Your straightline calculation did not take his physical decline into account.)

Now here's the really scary part: Nobody is regulating the almost-7-biLLLion complex chemical manufacturing facilities that are just wandering all *over* the ecology!

==8^0

/Find the LLL in that sentence

#16 Spiney Norman

The irony? Shoot, I *burned* myself on it, it was so hot!

#35 gwlaw99

Sorry--wasn't trying to step on your post. When I started transposing that "wire" in my #118, yours wasn't visible yet...

#115 quark2

If they were honest they would just out and out say they want to see [bigoted word]s destroy Israel and drive the survivors into the Red Sea.

They did. Read the UNGA Resolution 3379. Despite what you might believe, it has not been revoked. The full text of UNGA Resolution 4686 is:

The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.

The UNGA only revoked the determination, i.e. the last sentence of UNGAR 3379. The rest stands. Got it?

To paraphrase Joe Stalin, How many divisions does the World Court have?

Build the wall with muslim bones and surround it with a moat filled with bacon.

Ostracized (#117)

I know that there will be no immediate consequences, but the fact that the World Court has given a big "FxCK You" to Israel is lame.

The outcome is depressing but it was predictable. What is really disturbing is that this was allowed to take place at all.

#76 - Bubbaman -

F*ck the EU - I ain't giving you sh-t!

I'd wholeheartedly like to join you in this!!!

...

Israel rejects UN Court ruling.

The World Court says "it's so reprehensible,
That fence is just indefensible.
It ignores the needs of potential shaheeds--
Something that's incomprehensible!"

This descision is a sad day for international justice as it greatly undermines the credibility of the World Court.

Who gave this group of idiots the right to use the term "world court"? Or did they just take it up on their own?

#10 Condor:

And who is China to speak against having a wall to keep enemies out??

Since China built their wall centuries ago, surely there is no miltary defense justification for it, either. Let's be consistent: The Great Wall of China must come down!

#120 PDM

The euroweenies back the ICJ ruling. Now there's a shocker.

Want to show your disgust? Write 'em! Take a moment NOW to send an email to:

EU Court of Justice: info@curia.eu.int
European Parliament: civis@europarl.eu.int
The United Nations: ecu@un.org

I just sent this one (feel free to cut and paste):

Dear Sirs,

When Israel builds a fence to keep out terrorists, the UN and the EU are up in arms because it makes it difficult to kill Jews.

When terrorists shoot (point blank) and kill an eight month pregnant Jewish woman and her four little girls, there is absolute silence from your organizations.

If you think your indifference goes unnoticed, count the number of messages you will receive world-wide in the next 48 to 72 hours on this subject.

"Tie me kangaroo down sport,
Tie me kangaroo down."

How about this -- Israel issues
an indictment of the judges, as
accessories to murder.

: - ))

3130 Jonny

This descision is a sad day for international justice as it greatly undermines the credibility of the World Court.

What credibility? Also, with the UN in charge there's no such thing as "international justice".

“The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order"

I will agree with the World Court on this one, only for a different reason.

A wall or a fence is by definition something that will always be open to legal interpretation. Since a wall monumentally represents indecision and squeamish hesitancy on the part of a country whether it has the will to systematically defeat (i.e. systematically eradicate and destroy) the enemy, it indicates a growing taste for coexistence and hence axiomatically legal remedies and process are warranted.

The World Court will never ever dare rule that Israel cannot produce gigantic heaps of smouldering dead palistinians. It will never rule against Israel for shooting down in cold blood Palinazi leaders. It will never rule against Israel for laying waste and bulldozing entire cities and pumping hellfire missiles into houses and workshops.

#127 zulubaby,

The outcome is depressing but it was predictable. What is really disturbing is that this was allowed to take place at all.

Even from a religious perspective it is not surprising that we see the anti-Jews of the "World Court" tell Israel that their structure must come down as we begin the three weeks leading up to Tisha B'Av.

#133 Saeel,

Thanks. I will write.
I won't expect it to do have any effect because they are enemies of my/our people and preserving the rights of Arabs to murder Jews is their priority. But at least it will let them know that we know what they are.

Israel is surrounded by nations/peoples who have vowed, if given the chance, to eliminate it.

Nevertheless, Israel in a number of occasions has negiotiated a number of peace treaties which required sacrifice on her part, only to see those treaties broken, most recently, by suicide bombers who have no compunction killing women and children.

After years of trying to achieve peace through negotiation, Israel recognizes that negotiations will not reduce the violence directed towards it.

Despite the fact that Israel has the military strength to utterly destroy its enemies, it defends itself by building a fence.

And for this, it is condemned.

The Europeans are insane. Only in Europe would the construction of a secuirty fence be considered a great wrong to those trying to breach the fence and kill you.

#136:

The World Court will never ever dare rule that Arafat is a terrorist and that the EU funds terrorism.

Who cares about what they say?

A fence is a powerful signal of overwhelming legal significance: It indicates an existential desire for peaceful coexistence.

I don't sit out on my front porch with a rifle waiting to pick off my neighbor. I have a fence instead. And the reason I have a fence is because my neighbor is civilized. We may have our disagreements, but for the most part we wish to ignore each other. A fence, which I put up and he does not tear down, is a symbol of our mutual apathy towards each other.

The Palestinians unequivically do not want to and will not ignore Israel. The Palestinians are not civilized or capable of civilization.

Therefore they must be utterly and completely anihilated off the face of the earth, less they have a chance to do so to Israel.

This is the difference between a fence and a war.

PDM (#137)

Even from a religious perspective it is not surprising that we see the anti-Jews of the "World Court" tell Israel that their structure must come down as we begin the three weeks leading up to Tisha B'Av.

I thought about that. Interesting timing, isn't it?

More evidence that the LLL live in an immoral parallel universe. The Berlin Wall was immoral becuase it kept people imprisoned, not because it was a wall. By their logic, the Great Wall of China should be destroyed immediately becuase it could cause great harm to future generations of Monguls who may want to enter China in a less than peaceful manner.

In Israel, there is much debate about a security fence. This has prompted a very strong memory, having to do with a Nightline special done many years ago. It must have been pre-Oslo. Israelis and Palestinians really hadn’t talked to each other. And this special was meant to be a dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians, “for the first time,” or something dramatic like that.

Thing was, the Palestinian side insisted on a fence, right there in the studio. It was the damnedest thing: a fence — a little, homely fence — running between the two panels. Ted Koppel sat on it, I believe, when he made his introduction. I remember his saying that the fence pointed to the amazing difficulty of such a discussion, and of the Middle Eastern situation generally. I remember thinking that he hadn’t made enough of the fact that it was only the one side that required a fence. (One of the Palestinian panelists, by the way, was network-news honey Hanan Ashrawi.)

That was weird enough. But the most curious thing about the entire program (which was riveting in its way) was that the Palestinian side refused to make eye contact with the Israelis! They simply refused to look their way. It was one of the most strained things I’ve ever seen. The Israelis would look at the Palestinians, talk to them, try to engage them — and the Ashrawi-ites would stare straight ahead. I had a feeling that their fellow Palestinians would kill them or something if they dared look at the Israelis — or tried to do without their fence.

A freaky moment of television. And telling. And memorable.

The Palestinians, presently, are against the fence.

[Link: www.biublog.blogspot.com...]

#141 bigger diggler, just one tiny nit to pick:

The Palestinians unequivically do not want to and will not ignore Israel. The Palestinians are not civilized or capable of civilization.

Therefore they must be utterly and completely anihilated off the face of the earth, less they have a chance to do so to Israel.

I believe they are quite capable of civilization, just utterly unwilling.
The conclusion is the same. I'd rescue the tiny children and raise them within civilization.

Besides showing us the infinite wisdom of Chinese Communist judges in evaluating human rights issues, this ruling proves one thing:

If the jews really do run the world, they sure work awfully hard at proving to us that they don't.

Put succinctly here: International Court Of Justice’s Anti-Security Fence Decision Would Deny Israelis The Ultimate Human Right—The Right To Live

#142 zulubaby,

I thought about that. Interesting timing, isn't it?

Eerily so.
But it only means something to us. For the UN, Jew-hate is a year-round activity.

Three cheers for the fence!

#109, 133

Good idea about sending a message but you suggested sending it among other addressees to the EU Court of Justice. I think the proper addressee is the International Court of Justice

[Link: www.icj-cij.org...]

whose e-mail address apparantely is:

mail@icj-cij.org

"To Jerusalem we are going as martyrs in the millions,"
Yasser Arafat ; Sept. 12, 2003

. Those million Braineaters marching on Jerusalem have been stopped in their tracks by a Fence.

A Fence !

Hallelujah!

#109 Tiburon and #133 Saeel:
Done.

I also forwarded the message to everyone in my Contacts list I thought might do the same (lizardoids excepted--I'm assuming they will read about it here). In my email to my Contacts I also added the link to the Let's remove all fences web site (and to the link within that site about the fence the UN is building around its NY compound), plus the link to the press release from the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

I think it's important to give other people a bit of the background that we lizards have.

I haven't read through all the comments so please ignore if already posted, but get a load of this sheet as part of the 'hopping mice' decision, Self-defense - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - Article 51 not relevant in the present case.

Self-defense is not applicable! Well wouldn't you know!!

F**K THE ICJ and the UN, they're not applicable.

The ICJ has just condemned itself to uselessness. After
pummeling Israel in the UN, the other countries of the
world will follow Israel's lead in simply ignoring what
ever rulings the ICJ will make.

Those justices should have been wearing clown suits,
not judicial robes.

It's a good thing Israel built that illegal fence, otherwise the UN might have to do something about the oil-for-food scam and that genocide in the Sudan.
[Link: newsfromrussia.com...]

[Link: www.camera.org...]

I refuse to even consider this court objective in the slightest. 1 of the 15 judges clearly said ahead of the "trial" that he would vote against the security fence (yes of course it was one of the two arab judges), and the rest of the judges not even caring to take him of the case for that "little detail" proves the non objectivity of the ICJ.

How great for the ICJ that they can judge people like Milosevic years after, but when it comes to saving lives right now they spit in the face of the victims.

No matter what the ICJ says I am still convinced that Israel is the most moral of countries and "is a light unto other nations". They can bite me.

Disgusting. Last night I knew it...today confirms it...yet I'm still disgusted. I hope they hurry up and build the fence...I wonder...are resolutions binding on non-member states? I'll have to check on that.

Israel should just pull right out. Actually, I don't know if Israel even has a voice on the general council.

On the flipside, I sent an e-mail to the civis_at_europarl.eu.int, and it was returned with a 550 'mail system has been configured to reject e-mails from your domain'. What? North America...I guess they don't want to hear any outside opinions. 3 different accounts two ISP's and none of them work? Gah.

Terrorist loving bottom feeding low-lifes.

who cares what the UN says..from JINSA

JINSA
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 515
Washington, DC 20036

202-667-3900
202-667-0601 Fax
July 9, 2004

JINSA Report #422

The Fence

The International Court at The Hague is expected to rule against
Israel's construction of the Security Fence today. Maybe not exactly
the whole fence, but at least the parts built on "Palestinian land."
[Would that we could get the Palestinians to agree that at least some of
it was, therefore, built on "Israeli land." We've never seen the
Palestinians agree that ANY land was "Israeli land."] The U.S. will
vote against an anti-Israel decision; nearly all the European countries
asked the Court NOT to issue a ruling. But international institutions
have a life of their own and the Court won't waste an opportunity to
castigate Israel and further damage its own credibility.

According to previews of the ruling, the right of Palestinians to free
movement is greater than the right of Israelis to live. The right of
Palestinians not to be inconvenienced (the fence has gates for
legitimate crossing) is greater than the right of Israelis not to be
blown to pieces on a bus or eating in pizza parlors. The right of
terrorists to arrive at the target is greater than the right of Israeli
security to put impediments in their way.

And only Israel of all the countries in the world is so penalized. Only
Israel? Well, Israel's fence isn't the only one in the world, but it
seems to be the only one that engenders the horror of the world.
Consider these:

* The U.S. has one on the Mexican border, keeping out mainly jobseekers,
not terrorists
* North and South Korea are divided not only by a fence, but by mine fields
* Turkish Cypress & Greek Cypress have one
* The British built one in the middle of Belfast, Northern Ireland
* The friendly Dutch built one around the harbor area of Hoek van
Holland to keep illegal immigrants where the government wants them
* India and Pakistan have 450 miles of fence. Maybe it's a good thing.
* Spain has a barbed wired one, guarded by soldiers, at the Spanish
enclave of Ceuta, which is surrounded by Moroccan territory
* Botswana residents living near Zimbabwe apparently cheered as their
government built a 10-foot-high electrified fence on the border. Maybe
we don't blame them.
* Saudi Arabia, a petitioner to the Court at the Hague, built 60 miles
of security fence on the border with Yemen
* Turkey built one on land Syria claims

We're with Robert Frost on fences – no, not "Good fences make good
neighbors." Rather, "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know/What I was
walling in or walling out/And to whom I was like to give offence."

We suspect even Robert Frost would agree that Israel knows what it is
walling in and walling out. Between October 2000 and June 2003 (when the
northern part of the fence was completed), 35 "successful" suicide
attacks, killing 156 Israelis, emanated from Nablus and Jenin. Since
then, three; none since December.

Case closed.

To view this JINSA Report online click on the link below.
[Link: www.jinsa.org...]

@124 Mr.Pol

Yup. Their bigotry stands out like a sore thumb.

Spokesperson for the ICJ

Good on ya skippy.

World Court? Oh yeah, Judge Judy!

Reuters Humor

Palestinians face a brick wall of U.S. opposition to possible United Nations (news - web sites) action against Israel after the World Court ruled the Jewish state's West Bank barrier was illegal and should be dismantled

I would think that "Israel" is the appropriate designation for, well, Israel. Of course, no way could Reuters be playing on ancient bigotry. That would never happen.

As long as there's no souvereign Jewish state in Europe and no excuses and real solutions from Eurabia,the UN and the court ;All are illegal antisemitic terror organisations.
The fact that they can claim their hate and venom against the Jewish people openly in favor for terrorists proves they are immensely proud of their past and future holocausts.
Europe is illegal.

#163 Beagle,

I would think that "Israel" is the appropriate designation for, well, Israel. Of course, no way could Reuters be playing on ancient bigotry. That would never happen.

Their intention may be bad, but the designation is correct.
So to Reuters I would say: It is the Jewish state, and don't f***'n forget it!

#143 touched on my thoughts. Would these bozo's (my apologies to any clowns who might be offended) have ruled against the Berlin Wall? It is evident that the countries who make up the EU didn't! So the ruling must be: Walls that keep criminals out = bad. Walls that keep humans imprisoned for only wanting their God given rights = good! Simple isn't it!

This is rich indeed! Condemn the Israel for making the country safer but HEY split decision on what to do in the Darfur region of Sudan. Useless, meddling, perverted, lying, corupt b*st*rds!!!

(forgive me if that's been linked already)

#142 zulubaby

Not just interesting; downright scary for the superstitious. Luckly I'm not one of them :)

You know, Tzom Tammuz was just a couple days ago; it almost coincides. Tzom Tammuz (tammuz 17) is the commemoration of Nebuchadnezzar *breaching the wall* of Jerusalem. Get it along the recent fulfillment of symbolism in Daniel's dream and there's enough stuff to rewrite Neon Genesis Evangelion.

The only international law that exists is that which is entered by treaty parties or that which the United States chooses to enforce.

The wall that blocked the Polisario in Morroco, the wire that defeated the Arabs in Tunisia. Obstacles and barriers are quite effective against infiltration.

I like the idea of putting a moat along the border between Gaza and Egypt. That will give the tunnelers an interesting technological problem.

I would suggest that the council or Rabbis or some such rule that the members of the court must come to Israel and take the wall down with their own hands, living in Israel while they do so.

"Mr Shi Jiuyong, come yourself, and tear down this wall"

#154 pragmatist . . .

As you pointed out, this amazingly stupid ruling by the ICJ means that they have rendered themselves absolutely useless for all future cases.

Why would anyone care what the court ruled?

My favorite part of the court's decision:

139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self‑defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

On the first point, nothing in Article 51 says that the threat needs to be from a member state. (Note in any event that "Palestine" was allowed to participate in this case. So it's a state for purposes of being allowed to attack Israel with the pen, but not for purposes of being held accountable for attacking Israel with the sword.) The court's "logic" is a non sequitur.

On the second point, control, the reason that the wall is needed is that Israel WITHDREW from Yesha and ceded control to the Palestinian National Authority under the Oslo Accords.

So by the logic of paragraph 139, Israel should tear down the wall and run the PNA out on a rail. Not a bad idea, actually.

I am a Jew. This ruling convinces me of several things.

First and foremost, it convinces me that this 'court', this bastard child of the un, has in one foul blow, destroyed any vestige of prestige which its parent may still command. The un has become what it was created to destroy. It has become the de facto justification for antisemitism and genocide of Jews. It now stands alongside the nazi tyranny that propelled it into existence to destroy...nazi tyranny.

Second, the court has undermined entirely any notion that international justice is a worthwhile concept. I look at the trial of milosovic and wonder, is he REALLY culpable? Why do I wonder? Because he is being tried under a process that the 'court' of the un has just proven to be quite unjust, indeed, the antithesis of any concept of western justice. The US is 1 million percent right to shun this farcical body.

Thirdly, I am more convinced than ever that Israel must do what is necessary to transfer arabs to arab countries, incorporate Jewish land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza into its borders. This is Jewish land. The arabs have had over 50 years to exist alongside Jews. They can't and must now leave. I have no doubt that the argument about 'world opinon' will be thrown at this just measure. But the court of world opinion has just illustrated that it cares nothing for Jewish life or survival. If it cares nothing for us, then we should have no time for it. Would anyone suffering a life threatening illness go to Dr Mengeles for a cure (were he still alive and practising medecine)? Of course not. And the eu, un and the international court of Jew hatred are Dr Mengeles to the Jewish people.

Israel will survive only when we Jews ignore the renazifying world of europe and the un. Israel must be strong and use its strength. Let the perfidious eu and un and its make believe judges know that if Israel is threatened it has nukes and it could wipe out all the ME oil fields in 10 minutes. So stop worrying about arab opinoin and start worrying about Jewish opinon. And do it fast if Israel does what it must do and has to do.

It begins anew: Arabs Want Israeli Barrier Destroyed

I can’t begin to imagine what consequences or ramifications will arise from the ICJ’s decision in stating acts not imputable to a foreign state or national entity are not legal basis for actions of national self-defense but I’d hazard a guess we’ve finally arrived at the divide of irreconcilable difference with the euro’s.

I’d like to wish the Euro’s a ‘bon voyage’ on their trip to hell; it’s quite an accomplishment to legalize and justify the use of terror while unleashing the means of your own destruction in a single day. Way to go, asshats.

Malaysia Lauds ICJ's Ruling on Israeli Wall (The Star, Malaysia)

Malaysia, which currently chairs the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC)...Abdullah said he would write to the UN pressuring Israel to tear down the wall.

Rulings like this are why I am glad the US "offends" the rest of the world.

Baldy

Here's another great heap of caca fueled by the ICJ, ICJ ruling consoles Palestinians hurt feelings

I just might sit here all day and post the bs stories the media is pumping over the icj's stupidity. Consoles hurt feelings, my a$$. Emboldens and encourages acts of terror will prove closer to the mark.

"They can decide anything there. They can say the Earth is flat. It won't make it legal, it won't make it true and it won't make it just." - Binyamin Netanyahu

aboo-Hoo-Hoo, I can't believe that's the actual headline! I thought you were being sarcastic.

Of course the Palestinians' feelings are more important than Jewish lives.

"Israel was driven crazy after the court's ruling was made, although it was expected," said Khdeirat, adding that "we hope the ruling would rehabilitate our broken hearts and minds."

Awww, poor babies.

"This is a very dark day for the International Court of Justice and the international legal system," [Israel's] Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman told reporters at a press conference at UN headquarters in New York. "This is a tragic case where the victims of terror are being put on the dock rather than the terrorists themselves."

..Gillerman noted that while the ICJ referred to humanitarian and human rights law in supporting Palestinian opposition to the fence, it failed to address "the point that the right to life is the highest right."

"The Palestinians who want to stop this fence simply want to kill more Israelis," Gillerman said. "The Israelis who are building this fence simply want to live."

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Tell the judges how you really feel (but be polite)!

Send all emails to mail@icj-cij.org and also to the following addresses:

Shi Jiuyong (China) - presidentshi@hq.unu.edu

Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) - ry.ranjeva@icj-cij.org

Gilbert Guillaume (France) - g.guillaume@icj-cij.org

Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) - koroma@icj-cij.org

Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom) - r.higgins@icj-cij.org

Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela) - g.parra-aranguren@icj-cij.org

Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) - a.s.al-khasawneh@icj-cij.org

Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America)

Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) - law@hashemlaw.com

Hisashi Owada (Japan) - owada@jiia.or.jp

Bruno Simma (Germany) - simma@jura.uni-muenchen.de and simma@icj-cij.org

Peter Tomka (Slovakia) - mission.sloval@ties.itu.ch

I am still looking for addresses for (and would be grateful for any help):

Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)

Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)

Francisco Rezek (Brazil)

See also: [Link: www.idi-iil.org...] for more contact details