The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
 

Vol: 34 Issue: 9 - Friday, July 09, 2004

ICJ Dispenses WITH 'International Law'
by Jack Kinsella

The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled on the barrier fence
Israel is building to keep Palestinian terrorists out of Israeli
territory.

It decided that the barrier fence is illegal under 'international law' and
demanded that the Israelis must pull it down PLUS compensate Palestinians
who were displaced during its construction.

The 15-member court's advisory opinions are nonbinding but bear historic
weight, and they could serve as the basis for later action by the UN
General Assembly or Security Council.  After hearing arguments, the
justices voted 14-1 on their verdict. The lone dissenter was an
American -- Judge Thomas Buerghenthal.

At the Palestinians' request, the UN General Assembly asked the world
court last December for its opinion on the legality of the barrier.  The
General Assembly had already decided for itself that the fence was illegal
under 'international law' -- but that's the thing about 'international
law'. There is actually no such thing, so it is real easy to run afoul of
it.

In order for something like international law to exist, there must first
be an international legislative body to write it, an international court
to arbitrate it, and finally, a sovereign federal power to enforce it.

In the United States, each state writes and enforces its own state laws.
The federal government writes federal laws enforceable in all states, but
an FBI agent can't haul a shoplifter before a federal court for pocketing
a Walkman in a Wal-Mart. The federal government has no jurisdiction, since
shoplifting violates state law.

'International law' has authority only among individual nations who agree
to grant jurisdiction. That's what treaties are for.  And any nation can
opt out of any treaty at any time.  The United States has refused to grant
jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice without guarantees of
immunity for US troops and military leaders, for example.

Israel has refused to grant any jurisdiction whatever to the ICJ and UN
General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.

Israel, supported by the US and several European countries, argued that
the ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.  They
argued that it was a political issue, and not a judicial one.

Assessment:

Despite the validity of the arguments denying the ICJ jurisdiction, it
went ahead anyway. Because, as already noted, 'international law' is a
fiction in the first place.

The court was writing 'international law' as it went along, including the
'international law' necessary to give itself jurisdiction to violate the
UN's own Charter.

The ICJ decision becomes an 'international law' that essentially declares
Israel an outlaw state and puts a bounty on its head, while simultaneously
inventing Palestinian 'rights' for Israel to violate so the court would
have something to condemn Israel for when it ruled against the Jewish
State.

To call the International Court of Justice a kangaroo court would be doing
a disservice to kangaroo courts everywhere.  Judge Roy Bean had more legal
standing to declare himself the 'Law West of the Pecos' than does the ICJ
to claim jurisdiction over a sovereign state on behalf of a terrorist
organization demanding the right to create a new failed state.

Consider some of its main findings and their implications:

"The Court, from the material available to it, is not convinced that the
specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its
security objectives."

This finding alone turns 'international law' on its head.  If there is
anything approaching the level of 'international law, it is the United
Nations own Charter, which is the closest thing the UN has to a
Constitution.

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter says, "Nothing
contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to
intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such
matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall
not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

(It was under Chapter VII's authority that the UN removed Saddam from
Kuwait.) There are no provisions for the ICJ to decide from The Hague how
Israel should defend itself from armed attack.

Indeed, Chapter VII, Article 51 expressly says; "Nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense 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."

In other words, a member state has the inherent right of self-defense
except against UN forces operating under the authority of the UN Security
Council, as was the case in the 1991 Gulf War.

In its first finding, the ICJ shattered the right of a member state,
Israel, to conduct its own domestic policy and the right to defend itself
against armed attack from a stateless band of terrorists.

Further, The Court found; "the construction of the wall, and its
associated regime, are contrary to international law. Israel accordingly
has the obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the
wall being built by it in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in
and around East Jerusalem."

"Moreover, in view of the Court's finding that Israel's violations of its
international obligations stem from the construction of the wall and from
its associated regime, cessation of those violations entails in practice
the dismantling forthwith of those parts of that structure situated within
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East
Jerusalem."

There you have it!  The British couldn't do it. The United Nations
couldn't do it. Five wars couldn't do it. But the ICJ has at last
determined where Israel's borders are. Wherever the Palestinian Authority
wants it.

Another of the Court's findings leapt off the page as I was reading it. It
was as if the ICJ had studied Zechariah Chapter 12 and adjusted its ruling
to conform to Bible prophecy.

"It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter
and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from
the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of
its right to self determination is brought to an end."

Read that one again!  It is a call for all member states to band
together -- against Israel -- to force Israel to give up East Jerusalem
and its holy places in Biblical Judea and Samaria.  Do you see it?

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people
round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and
against Jerusalem.  And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome
stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in
pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against
it." (Zechariah 12:2-3)

But the International Court of Justice didn't really study Zechariah
before issuing its ruling.  It is more the other way around.

From His perspective outside of space and time, God studied the
International Court and issued HIS ruling through the prophet Zechariah.
His 'finding' begins with all the nations of the world turning on Israel
over Jerusalem.

But God's 'finding' goes a bit further, making it even more unlikely the
ICJ intentionally followed Zechariah's outline;

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all
the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and
they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only Son, and shall be
in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his Firstborn."
(Zechariah 12:9-10)

Tick . . . Tick . . . Tick. . .