The Myth of International Law

(Jerusalem Post) Gerald M. Steinberg - Israel's High Court of Justice recently ruled that the separation barrier built to protect Israelis against Palestinian terrorist attacks was morally justified as well as legal. While ordering some changes in the routing to limit the impact on Palestinians, the Israeli court rejected the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion, which called the barrier illegal. The ICJ's majority had erased the context of terrorism, and focused exclusively on distorted political claims. Claims regarding international law and universal human rights norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the U.S., Britain, or other countries do not reflect any consistent moral position. Instead, they are used to pursue a political and ideological agenda that is essentially anti-democratic. If the principles of universal justice were the objectives, rather than simply the means for supporting personal goals, then Palestinian, Syrian, Saudi and other terrorists would have been tried for war crimes and human rights violations long ago.

2005-10-21 00:00:00

Full Article


Visit the Daily Alert Archive