'Why does it matter what they think in The Hague?'

[Gimel]

After World War II, British prime minister Winston Churchill published his memoirs," said Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, illustrating his worldview of international diplomacy via a historical anecdote. "When the book was published in 1950, the United Nations was still a new institution. `We hoped that it would turn out better,' wrote Churchill, `but in the end it was a tower of Babel with lobbyists.' If Israel views the UN or the International Criminal Court at The Hague as a gathering of diplomats and nothing else, there is no reason not to go to the party that everyone is attending. Even so, one must remember that this is not a world government, and its votes are not world law."

Rabkin, 51, a Jewish Republican from New York, has a doctorate in political science from Harvard University and is a lecturer on governance at Cornell University. He is a world-renowned researcher of the idea of national sovereignty, international law and political thought. Among the books he has published are "Judicial Compulsions," "Why Sovereignty Matters" and "Law Without Nations," which will be coming out in the summer of 2004.

<clip>

Complicating matters

The UN's decision to ask the IJC to rule on the separation fence that Israel is building in the territories, and furthermore, Israel's intention to send representation to the hearing set for February 23, 2004, in order to challenge the courts jurisdiction on the one hand and to explain Israel position on the other, will, in Rabkin's opinion, only further complicate matters rather than bring a solution any closer.

"This court is actually an international arbitration institute," says Rabkin. "It was set up on the idea that if there is an international dispute and both sides are willing to have it arbitrated by the court, then such an institution is a good thing. But Israel did not authorize the transfer of the debate on the fence to arbitration by the court, and despite this, the UN General Assembly decided to ask the court's opinion."

<clip>

In Rabkin's opinion, the idea that it is possible to rule whether a certain act, such as the construction of a separation fence in the middle of the West Bank, contravenes international law or constitutes a war crime, is a ridiculous idea.

"To say such a thing means to think that there are clear laws and that all one has to do is check the answer," says Rabkin. "We do not live in such a world. After all, no serious man would believe that if people would only obey international law then there would be peace and security for all.

<clip>

"One must understand that neither the ICJ nor the UN is a world government, and the simple fact that there is a majority of nations that think a certain way does not make it the law. What does it matter what Guatemala or Latvia or Sweden think about the construction of the fence? Is there some sort of common interest here? Of course not. There is no country in the world that is subject to continuous terror attacks as Israel is. There is no fair trial at the ICJ - only a vote.

<clip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/382740.html

An expert in international law says that there is no such thing, and that the ICJ is only an opinion poll.

[Sinistrous]

1. How do the opinions polls issued by the ICJ differ from

the "opinion polls" issued by the Nuremburg tribunal? The Nuremburg "opinion polls" resulted in quite a few people being deservedly hung.

[The Magistrate]

2. That Is Rather A Difference, Sir, Is It Not?

The Nuremberg Tribunal was a court of victors, who held the vanquished in their power, and could carry out their judgements without let or hinderance. These persons were hung for the murder of millions of prisoners, and for the commencement of wars in express violation of binding treaties. Nothinmg being brought before the current Court at the Hague comes close to such charges, nor could anything brought before it do so, for the simple reason that no such events have occured in the course of the Levantine imbroglio.

The charter of the Court empowers it to advise the United Nations on points of international law, when it is asked to do so. It will be useful to have a hearing on this particular question, because it will allow to be aired before a competent tribunal the various arguments concerning whether the Geneva Accords apply to the situation of the territories over-run by Israel in '67. It is not so settled a question as many think. While it is my view that they do, the arguments against that view are not wholly frivolous, and it will be useful to see what a competent court decides, and what it bases its decision on.

[bluesoul]

3. So no need

to respect international law. TheICJ is bad when Israel is violating it and they say it loud and clear. If it were about others there would be no problem. Hypocrisy at it's finest...

[Gimel]

7. No ruling yet

How can you say that Israel is "violating it" when there has been no ruling, and when there is it's only an opinion, not a binding "sentence" to be carried out? In your mind Israel is guilty. That's your opinion, but not that of everyone else in the world.

[bluesoul]

8. Israel has been violating international law for 3 decades

I am not talking about one particular case but others that have been brought before the UN. Illegal occupation, illegal settlements, house demolishment...

[Gimel]

17. Unfortunately

There is no consensus on that. You must state that that is your own opinion, as there are valid opinions on two sides of the issue.

[bluesoul]

19. Nope

international law is very clear and precise, and the UN resolutions, conventions were also very clear. Unless you don't respect the UN. but then Israel should stop being a member of it. There are not only benefits but also responsibilities with ones actions you know...

[meti57b]

20. the majority of those who vote and pass these resolutions ....

do NOT want Israel to exist as a Jewish state, under any circumstances.

[bluesoul]

21. Sure

more conspiracy theories about everyone hating Israel. Only USA, and those two Islands want it to exist, all the rest hate Israel,right? Which would include a big part of the world that is neither Muslim nor Arab... :crazy: It couldn't be that Israel is actually doing something WRONG...

[Gimel]

26. the EU

I suppose it means they don't care either way when they abstain on a resolution? Not such good friends, either.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Why should we care about what a New York Republican has to say?

When did the opinion of people that support Bush and his wars begin to matter to Democrats and liberals?

Why are their neocon views given a forum in DU?

Jeremy Rabkin is part of that sad parade of New York conservatives that include Pataki and Bloomberg, and more recently Ed Koch. In addition to that, this rightwing puke supports Cheney and Wolfowitz's PNAC agenda.

Why should we care about what a New York Republican has to say?

Anyone that supports Bush is a pig!

[bluesoul]

5. Nobody else would be saying it's only a poll

or that it doesn't matter. Only when it goes for Israel and it's violations, some people are just not capable of dealing with the responsibility of its actions and crimes. The same case as with Serbia which also didn't want to recognize it under Milosevic. But even in Serbia things have changed since Milosevic was turned over to the Hague. When will the same happen with Israel...

[Gimel]

9. Opinions of experts

You personally may reject the opinion of this Harvard expert, author of many books on the subject, but can you also reject the opinion of Democrats like Bill Clinton? He received an honorary degree in Israel just a year or so ago. He definitely supports Israel's right to self defense in this situation.

[bluesoul]

10. Does Clinton

not support the rights of the Palestinians to their state and self defense?

[IndianaGreen]

13. Clinton gave us Plan Colombia

and an 8-year bombing and embargo campaign against Iraq. Clinton also pursued Republican policies on Cuba and the rest of Latin America, and he also catered to the darker impulses in American society when he signed DOMA into law.

[Gimel]

15. So what are you saying?

You oppose a professional opinion on the grounds of politics, now you point out what a less than perfect "liberal" record by a Democratic president.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Henry Kissinger had a PhD, but he also supported genocide

We don't need anymore Kissingers!

[Lurking Dem]

28. What does that have to do with Clinton?

[IndianaGreen]

29. Clinton is a war criminal

That's what Plan Colombia is really all about!

[GabysPoppy]

30. Any Democrats you do approve of?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. And you agree with every professional political opinion?

That's interesting to learn ;) There's many, many experts on international law who have opinions on the I/P conflict you don't agree with, and have opinions that each other don't agree with....

Seems to me that if this particular expert wasn't putting forth an opinion you agreed with, there'd be no posts from you along the lines of 'you oppose the professional opinion of an expert on international law???'

Violet...

[dudeness]

6. slight point of difference with the doctor

"This court is actually an international arbitration institute," says Rabkin. "It was set up on the idea that if there is an international dispute and both sides are willing to have it arbitrated by the court, then such an institution is a good thing. But Israel did not authorize the transfer of the debate on the fence to arbitration by the court, and despite this, the UN General Assembly decided to ask the court's opinion."

It is my view ( a laymans) that such a statement would in effect render any such court or tribunal ineffective, I am at odds with this assertion. When two parties are in dispute, it is rarely a level playing field, one party inevitably holds the upper hand in such a situation. It is in the interests of the stronger party to avoid any type of third party intervention, preferring to use the means at its disposal to achieve a successful resolution. Such a predicament leads to "might is right" and an abbregation of responsibilties under international law. The idea that both parties must agree to arbitration is also flawed , it is a denial of natural justice for the weaker or oppressed party, and would ensure the continuation of dispute ,that is until one side is coerced or bludgeoned into agreeance.

[Gimel]

11. Your point is well put

None-the-less, I see that the reasoning behind the opinion of Prof Rabkin is in the article. There is no agreed law or standard to follow in making a decision. In fact, any decision would be based on bias, and with little understanding of the realities involved.


"The idea behind the establishment of the ICC is that the world is sufficiently united to accept the definitions of justice of some bureaucrat at The Hague. This is clearly not the situation. He is just a clerk, one person from Argentina, for example, and there is no reason to believe he knows more than we do when it is worth trying someone."

Because there is no universal consensus on law, and because it will fall into a rather arbitrary decision, Israel cannot afford to give up its basic right, the basic right of all nations, to the whim of such a court. Perhaps some would enjoy seeing Israel di or bi-sected an it's leaders hanged, but that is not going to happen. Israel has more moral standing than Hamas and a whole generation of suicide bombers.

If you want to stake the future of your nation of whether a guy in the Hague had an argument with his wife the night before, or indigestion, then you would be taking such an arbitrary risk.

[bluesoul]

12. Israel, moral standing compared to Hamas?

Your comparisons are nice, but compared to a normal democracy, Israel is far worse off...

[Gimel]

14. Normal

What ever is normal? Each country, like each individual, is unique. With a constant threat of attack on any given day, I wouldn't say Israel is exactly normal. However, it's democratic system is one of the best in the world. You may object to the elected officials, but that does not mean that Israel is any less democratic.

[bluesoul]

16. One of the best in the world?

Without even having a constitution as the rest of the democratic world has...

[Gimel]

18. the Basic Law

of Israel gives all the guarantees of personal freedom that a constitution does. Without calling it a "constitution" it serves the same purpose.

[The Magistrate]

22. England Has No Written Constitution, Sir

Constitutionalism and Democracy are seperate concepts.

Democracy in England is the font of Democracy in the modern world, for better or worse: it was there that the concept of Liberty found its first fruition in the West. All else, several centuries ago, was mere absolutism, and openly described itself as such, saving only perhaps some small jurisdictions like the Swiss cantons, and some merchant oligarchies and free towns on the coasts of the North Sea and the Baltic.

[vierundzwanzig]

23. Neither has Israel

n/t

[The Magistrate]

25. And Your Point Is, Sir?

Democratic rule and Constitutionalism are not one and the same. Soviet Russia had a splendid constitution, that mandated and permitted totalitarian Party rule.

Or are you prepared to support the proposition England is no Democracy?

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Democracy and Israel

I've made this argument before. Let's start be defining two terms. First, democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote..
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or punished in any way by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or wrongheaded.

Next we have the definition of Israel. Specifically, we are taking about Israel's borders. If we define Israel's borders as being the Green Line, then Israel passes the democracy test. There is discrimination against Israel's citizens of Arab ancestry, some of it even official. However, these problems are not insurmountable and could be fixed without having to resort to a radical upheaval of society.

On the other hand, if we define Israel as encompassing the Palestinian Territories as well as what is inside the Green Line, then Israel fails the democracy test. In the territories, there is a split level of citizenship: Israeli Jews have the rights of citizens; Palestinians do not. The Israeli state may confiscate land from Palestinians and allow Israeli Jews to purchase it and build housing on the confiscated real estate on which Palestinians may not live. These settlements are accessed on roads on which Palestinians may not travel. The Prime Minister provides security for the Israeli settlements, but tells Palestinian farmers he cannot guarantee their safety from Israelis settlers harassing them as they harvest their olives or from vandalism. This is a system that resembles South African apartheid in many ways. It is by no stretch of the imagination democratic.

For most people, Israel's borders are at the Green Line or at least near it. The West Bank and Gaza were not controlled by Israel until it was overrun in the 1967 war and not considered to be part of Israel by anyone until Prime Minister Menachem Begin declared the territories to be an integral part of Israel in 1977; even after that declaration, which was never even considered by the Knesset, few beyond Begin's right wing supporters in Israel considered that territory Israel. Thus, Israel's borders are at the Green Line and the settlement policy resulting from Begin's declaration is an attempt to impose unequally Israeli law in the territories. Apart from the law being applied unequally in the territories, Palestinians were not asked about Begin's de facto annexation by decree. They undoubtedly would have opposed it if they were allowed to vote on it in a referendum. In short, there rights were ignored from the start. Moreover, there is no one who is so foolish as to even seriously suggest that Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza would choose to be Israeli citizens, unless to do so would undermine the Jewish state. The territories are not part of Israel. The land is occupied and the residents are resisting that occupation.

Since international law is the question addressed by this thread, we will lay aside the question of whether by settling the occupied territory in this way Israel is in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rather, we will go to Israel's rationale for this abrogation of democratic principle in the occupied territories.

The Israelis and their supporters who frequent this board claim that the undemocratic measures in the territories exist for the purpose of security. They point out that Palestinians are resisting Israeli occupation and using violent means, even terrorism, to do so. It is certainly true that Palestinians support a resistance movement and that terrorism is a major tactic of resistance fighters. They point to terrorist attacks inside Israel itself, as well on on settlers in the occupied territories. Israel's supporters argue that the security measures, while undemocratic, are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks.

However, it can be countered that the settlements are not about security; they are about territorial expansion. Transferring parts of the occupying power's population into occupied territory where the resistance fighters reside and enjoy popular support does not seem to be a way of enhancing the security of Israeli citizens. The segregated roads and checkpoints between Palestinian towns do not prevent attacks against Israeli citizens in Israel; they protect settlers living beyond Israel's borders.

Moreover, if Israel were interested in protecting her citizens from attacks by Palestinian terrorists, she would withdraw those Israeli citizens living in outlaying areas beyond Israel to a defensive perimeter where they can be protected. In short, Israel would dismantle settlements and fortify the border. Instead, up to now, Israel has expanded settlement growth. In light of that, it is difficult to defend denying Palestinians the right to travel freely in the occupied territories on the grounds of security.

The building of the Wall may change that strategy and herald a more sensible defensive posture. Outlaying settlements will be removed and the Wall will be a fortified barrier behind which Israeli citizens will be safe.

The Israelis have a right and a good reason to build a Wall. The only question is whether the Wall is being constructed in a way that minimizes the inconvenience to residents of occupied territory and consistent with claims that it is for Israel's security or whether it is being constructed to incorporate Palestinian land into Israel. The closer the Wall adheres to the Green Line, the better it will serve the purpose of protecting Israelis living inside of that boundary from terrorist attacks.

[dudeness]

32. thanks for your well written reply

Without dissecting Prof Rabkin hypothesis, I would , however, reply to your arguments.
I believe there is, in fact, standards to be followed for such a tribunal . The universal declaration of human rights springs to mind almost immediately . This declaration sets out in no uncertain terms , the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Not withstanding, the ICJ itself is bound by statutes and rules of court. As for Prof Rabkins allegations of bias, these are less than worthy of an expert in international law, this particular case will be heard before a select panel of 15 judges and resultant decision referred to the UN security council. To also allege little understanding of the realities involved is tantamount to a cheap shot on Prof Rabkins behalf. The court itself has been in place since 1946 and has delivered judgments on far ranging issues of major world importance. Unfortunately the bias in this particular article falls squarely on Prof Rabkins shoulders, his sentiments reflect the unilateralist approach of a rampant militaristic Bush regime. And those of us whom oppose such a view also must disagree with Prof Rabkin..

[Gimel]

33. Justice and the ICJ

While I certainly hope that justice is served, and that ah honest effort is made by the court to view the reality on both sides, without prejudice, a tie vote would leave the outcome in the hands of one of the judges who couldn't make up his mind. That could be what Prof. Rabkin meant by his assessment of a single official from Argentina deciding the outcome.

Are you sure that the results go to the Security Council? It was the GA that referred the vote to the court, not the Security Council.

[dudeness]

35. on the points you raise, Gimel

prof rabkins claim that a "clerk" from argentina could decide the outcome of this hearing is patently an untruth..of the judges hearing this ..neither Israel nor Palestine will represented..you are quite correct on your second point, however , once a final determination is made , should a state fail to comply with the decision , the other party may have recourse to the security council..

[JohnLocke]

31. Great post.