Savage, forensic dissection by Anne Bayevsky of the International Court of Justice ruling against Israel's security barrier makes clear that the noxious implications of this judgment go far beyond the demonisation of Israel:

'The Court has declared four new rules about the meaning of the right of self-defense in the face of terrorism today.
(1) There is no right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter when the terrorists are not state actors.
(2) There is no right of self-defense against terrorists who operate from any territory whose status is not finalized, and who therefore attack across disputed borders.
(3) Where military action is perpetrated by "irregulars," self-defense does not apply if the "scale and effects" of the terrorism are insufficient to amount to "an armed attack...had it been carried out by regular armed forces." (The scale in this case is 860 Israeli civilians killed in the last three years — the proportional equivalent of at least 14 9/11's.)
(4) Self-defense does not include nonviolent acts, or in the words of Judge Rosalyn Higgins: "I remain unconvinced that non-forcible measures (such as the building of a wall) fall within self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter."

'These conclusions constitute a direct assault on the ability of every U.N. member to fight international terrorism. The U.N. Charter was not a suicide pact and Security Council resolutions in response to 9/11 were intended to strengthen the capacity to confront violent non-state actors, not defeat it.'

As far as Israel itself was concerned, Bayevsky exposes the judges' malevolent selectivity, double standards, political bias, historical distortion and misrepresentation of UN resolutions, as well as this:

'Having couched their analysis in general terms, however, some of the judges were concerned that the go-ahead for Palestinian suicide bombers might not be obvious enough. So Judge Abdul Koroma of Sierra Leone wrote: "It is understandable that a prolonged occupation would engender resistance." Judge Nabil Elaraby of Egypt said, "Throughout the annals of history, occupation has always been met with armed resistance. Violence breeds violence." He "wholeheartedly subscribe[d] to the view" that there is "a right of resistance." Judge Hisashi Owada of Japan spoke of the "the so-called terrorist attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers against the Israeli civilian population." '

I happen to think that, while the barrier may well be a regrettable necessity, the routing of it beyond the Green Line is wrong. But by this judgment, the ICJ has revealed that the idea it has anything to do with justice is an Orwellian satire. It is instead a body that degrades justice and implicitly promotes terror. It should forfeit all respect. But we live in uniquely degraded and corrupted times. Bayevsky ends with this plea:

'The Arab drive to destroy the state of Israel has debased the U.N., sullied its charter, perverted the meaning of human rights, and ransacked international law and its highest Court. How many more of the universal ideals upon which our world depends must be desecrated before we say "enough"?'

Alas, I fear, plenty more.

Posted by melanie at July 20, 2004