The myth of international law Oct. 15, 2005 GERALD M STEINBERG , THE JERUSALEM POST
The 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 related to the legal status of “occupied territory.”
Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not yet bring themselves to state that international law has become another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authority.
But this is the reality, as also shown in the example of Daniel Machover, a lawyer living in London who exploits the idea of human rights to promote a very narrow crusade against Israel. Accompanied by a chorus of NGOs singing hymns to international law, and empowering himself, via the British courts, as a neo-colonial high commissioner over Israel's democracy, Machover brands Israeli leaders as war criminals. (A few months ago, he also promoted the academic boycott of Israel.)
SUCH CLAIMS regarding international law and universal human rights norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the United States, 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 in Britain for war crimes and human rights violations long ago. And the same is true for their European weapons suppliers, bankers, etc.
The basic weaknesses of international law and human rights are not in the theory, which seeks to establish a moral code of conduct that encompasses the entire world, to prevent gen ocide, terror campaigns, and slavery. These objectives, which were added to traditional law governing less explosive issues such as trade disputes and piracy on the high seas, are entirely worthy. And as peace and democracy spread in parts of the world, t he relations between such nations are indeed governed by common principles and negotiations, and less by force and violence.
But most parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, are not governed by the principles of democracy. As a result, the c laim that international law in practice can be determined by majority decisions of political organizations like the UN made up primarily of totalitarian regimes is nonsense. Similarly, there is no moral basis for claims by the unelected leaders of non-gov ernmental organizations, such as Machover and Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth, to speak for “civil society.” They can only speak for themselves and the organizations they head, and their opinions on morality and human rights have the same value as anyone else's – no less, and no more.
In this reality, the principles that are said to constitute “international law” lack the two central properties required for any legitimate legal system: the consent of the governed, and uniform and unprejudiced application. International law and the claims made in its name fit neither criteria.
In a democratic framework, the legal system gains legitimacy through the consent of the citizens, and accountable to democratic procedures. We accept the limitations placed on us by the system of laws and the role of the police in enforcing these laws as part of the requirements for justice and order in any functioning society. But we do not accept limitations imposed from the outside, without our consent. Thus, the claims of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and campaigns run by obsessed extremists in Europe, lack any legitimate moral foundation or standing in democratic societies with their own legal system.
Similarly, when judges sittin g on the Israeli High Court base decisions on international law, they are attempting to impose an external framework which lacks the legitimacy provided by the consent of the governed.
THE OTHER problem with the use of international law is the absence of equitable implementation. No legal system that focuses its attention selectively can be considered legitimate. Thus, the routine condemnations of Israeli or American policy by the UN, the ICJ, and accompanying NGOs have no moral or legal validity when the principles are not applied uniformly.
In contrast to these destructive polemics, in order to promote a meaningful universal moral code, it is necessary to recognize the need for the consent of the governed and for consistent and universal enforcement. International law based on justice, and not ideology, remains a worthy objective. But the substitution of political rhetoric that invokes the myths and rhetoric for the real thing is entirely counterproductive.
The writer directs the Program on Confli ct Management at Bar-Ilan University and is the editor of www.ngo-monitor.org.
> The myth of international law > Oct. 15, 2005 > GERALD M STEINBERG , THE JERUSALEM POST
> The 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 > related to the legal status of “occupied territory.”
> Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not > yet bring themselves to state that international law has become > another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authority.
> But this is the reality, as also shown in the example of Daniel > Machover, a lawyer living in London who exploits the idea of human > rights to promote a very narrow crusade against Israel. Accompanied by > a chorus of NGOs singing hymns to international law, and empowering > himself, via the British courts, as a neo-colonial high commissioner > over Israel's democracy, Machover brands Israeli leaders as war > criminals. (A few months ago, he also promoted the academic boycott of > Israel.)
> SUCH CLAIMS regarding international law and universal human rights > norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the United States, > 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 in Britain for war crimes and > human rights violations long ago. And the same is true for their > European weapons suppliers, bankers, etc.
> The basic weaknesses of international law and human rights are not in > the theory, which seeks to establish a moral code of conduct that > encompasses the entire world, to prevent gen ocide, terror campaigns, > and slavery. These objectives, which were added to traditional law > governing less explosive issues such as trade disputes and piracy on > the high seas, are entirely worthy. And as peace and democracy spread > in parts of the world, t he relations between such nations are indeed > governed by common principles and negotiations, and less by force and > violence.
> But most parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, are not > governed by the principles of democracy. As a result, the c laim that > international law in practice can be determined by majority decisions > of political organizations like the UN made up primarily of > totalitarian regimes is nonsense. Similarly, there is no moral basis > for claims by the unelected leaders of non-gov ernmental > organizations, such as Machover and Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth, to > speak for “civil society.” They can only speak for themselves and the > organizations they head, and their opinions on morality and human > rights have the same value as anyone else's – no less, and no more.
> In this reality, the principles that are said to constitute > “international law” lack the two central properties required for any > legitimate legal system: the consent of the governed, and uniform and > unprejudiced application. International law and the claims made in its > name fit neither criteria.
> In a democratic framework, the legal system gains legitimacy through > the consent of the citizens, and accountable to democratic procedures. > We accept the limitations placed on us by the system of laws and the > role of the police in enforcing these laws as part of the requirements > for justice and order in any functioning society. But we do not accept > limitations imposed from the outside, without our consent. Thus, the > claims of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the > International Criminal Court, and campaigns run by obsessed extremists > in Europe, lack any legitimate moral foundation or standing in > democratic societies with their own legal system.
> Similarly, when judges sittin g on the Israeli High Court base > decisions on international law, they are attempting to impose an > external framework which lacks the legitimacy provided by the consent > of the governed.
> THE OTHER problem with the use of international law is the absence of > equitable implementation. No legal system that focuses its attention > selectively can be considered legitimate. Thus, the routine > condemnations of Israeli or American policy by the UN, the ICJ, and > accompanying NGOs have no moral or legal validity when the principles > are not applied uniformly.
> In contrast to these destructive polemics, in order to promote a > meaningful universal moral code, it is necessary to recognize the need > for the consent of the governed and for consistent and universal > enforcement. International law based on justice, and not ideology, > remains a worthy objective. But the substitution of political rhetoric > that invokes the myths and rhetoric for the real thing is entirely > counterproductive.
> The writer directs the Program on Confli ct Management at Bar-Ilan > University and is the editor ofwww.ngo-monitor.org.
> The myth of international law > Oct. 15, 2005 > GERALD M STEINBERG , THE JERUSALEM POST
> The 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 > related to the legal status of “occupied territory.”
> Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not > yet bring themselves to state that international law has become > another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authority.
> But this is the reality, as also shown in the example of Daniel > Machover, a lawyer living in London who exploits the idea of human > rights to promote a very narrow crusade against Israel. Accompanied by > a chorus of NGOs singing hymns to international law, and empowering > himself, via the British courts, as a neo-colonial high commissioner > over Israel's democracy, Machover brands Israeli leaders as war > criminals. (A few months ago, he also promoted the academic boycott of > Israel.)
> SUCH CLAIMS regarding international law and universal human rights > norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the United States, > 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 in Britain for war crimes and > human rights violations long ago. And the same is true for their > European weapons suppliers, bankers, etc.
> The basic weaknesses of international law and human rights are not in > the theory, which seeks to establish a moral code of conduct that > encompasses the entire world, to prevent gen ocide, terror campaigns, > and slavery. These objectives, which were added to traditional law > governing less explosive issues such as trade disputes and piracy on > the high seas, are entirely worthy. And as peace and democracy spread > in parts of the world, t he relations between such nations are indeed > governed by common principles and negotiations, and less by force and > violence.
> But most parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, are not > governed by the principles of democracy. As a result, the c laim that > international law in practice can be determined by majority decisions > of political organizations like the UN made up primarily of > totalitarian regimes is nonsense. Similarly, there is no moral basis > for claims by the unelected leaders of non-gov ernmental > organizations, such as Machover and Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth, to > speak for “civil society.” They can only speak for themselves and the > organizations they head, and their opinions on morality and human > rights have the same value as anyone else's – no less, and no more.
> In this reality, the principles that are said to constitute > “international law” lack the two central properties required for any > legitimate legal system: the consent of the governed, and uniform and > unprejudiced application. International law and the claims made in its > name fit neither criteria.
> In a democratic framework, the legal system gains legitimacy through > the consent of the citizens, and accountable to democratic procedures. > We accept the limitations placed on us by the system of laws and the > role of the police in enforcing these laws as part of the requirements > for justice and order in any functioning society. But we do not accept > limitations imposed from the outside, without our consent. Thus, the > claims of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the > International Criminal Court, and campaigns run by obsessed extremists > in Europe, lack any legitimate moral foundation or standing in > democratic societies with their own legal system.
> Similarly, when judges sittin g on the Israeli High Court base > decisions on international law, they are attempting to impose an > external framework which lacks the legitimacy provided by the consent > of the governed.
> THE OTHER problem with the use of international law is the absence of > equitable implementation. No legal system that focuses its attention > selectively can be considered legitimate. Thus, the routine > condemnations of Israeli or American policy by the UN, the ICJ, and > accompanying NGOs have no moral or legal validity when the principles > are not applied uniformly.
> In contrast to these destructive polemics, in order to promote a > meaningful universal moral code, it is necessary to recognize the need > for the consent of the governed and for consistent and universal > enforcement. International law based on justice, and not ideology, > remains a worthy objective. But the substitution of political rhetoric > that invokes the myths and rhetoric for the real thing is entirely > counterproductive.
> The writer directs the Program on Confli ct Management at Bar-Ilan > University and is the editor ofwww.ngo-monitor.org.
> The myth of international law > Oct. 15, 2005 > GERALD M STEINBERG , THE JERUSALEM POST
> The 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 > related to the legal status of “occupied territory.”
> Judge Aharon Barak and his colleagues rebuked the ICJ, but could not > yet bring themselves to state that international law has become > another weapon in political warfare, without any moral authority.
> But this is the reality, as also shown in the example of Daniel > Machover, a lawyer living in London who exploits the idea of human > rights to promote a very narrow crusade against Israel. Accompanied by > a chorus of NGOs singing hymns to international law, and empowering > himself, via the British courts, as a neo-colonial high commissioner > over Israel's democracy, Machover brands Israeli leaders as war > criminals. (A few months ago, he also promoted the academic boycott of > Israel.)
> SUCH CLAIMS regarding international law and universal human rights > norms, whether made with respect to Israel, the United States, > 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 in Britain for war crimes and > human rights violations long ago. And the same is true for their > European weapons suppliers, bankers, etc.
> The basic weaknesses of international law and human rights are not in > the theory, which seeks to establish a moral code of conduct that > encompasses the entire world, to prevent gen ocide, terror campaigns, > and slavery. These objectives, which were added to traditional law > governing less explosive issues such as trade disputes and piracy on > the high seas, are entirely worthy. And as peace and democracy spread > in parts of the world, t he relations between such nations are indeed > governed by common principles and negotiations, and less by force and > violence.
> But most parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, are not > governed by the principles of democracy. As a result, the c laim that > international law in practice can be determined by majority decisions > of political organizations like the UN made up primarily of > totalitarian regimes is nonsense. Similarly, there is no moral basis > for claims by the unelected leaders of non-gov ernmental > organizations, such as Machover and Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth, to > speak for “civil society.” They can only speak for themselves and the > organizations they head, and their opinions on morality and human > rights have the same value as anyone else's – no less, and no more.
> In this reality, the principles that are said to constitute > “international law” lack the two central properties required for any > legitimate legal system: the consent of the governed, and uniform and > unprejudiced application. International law and the claims made in its > name fit neither criteria.
> In a democratic framework, the legal system gains legitimacy through > the consent of the citizens, and accountable to democratic procedures. > We accept the limitations placed on us by the system of laws and the > role of the police in enforcing these laws as part of the requirements > for justice and order in any functioning society. But we do not accept > limitations imposed from the outside, without our consent. Thus, the > claims of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the > International Criminal Court, and campaigns run by obsessed extremists > in Europe, lack any legitimate moral foundation or standing in > democratic societies with their own legal system.
> Similarly, when judges sittin g on the Israeli High Court base > decisions on international law, they are attempting to impose an > external framework which lacks the legitimacy provided by the consent > of the governed.
> THE OTHER problem with the use of international law is the absence of > equitable implementation. No legal system that focuses its attention > selectively can be considered legitimate. Thus, the routine > condemnations of Israeli or American policy by the UN, the ICJ, and > accompanying NGOs have no moral or legal validity when the principles > are not applied uniformly.
> In contrast to these destructive polemics, in order to promote a > meaningful universal moral code, it is necessary to recognize the need > for the consent of the governed and for consistent and universal > enforcement. International law based on justice, and not ideology, > remains a worthy objective. But the substitution of political rhetoric > that invokes the myths and rhetoric for the real thing is entirely > counterproductive.
> The writer directs the Program on Confli ct Management at Bar-Ilan > University and is the editor ofwww.ngo-monitor.org.
You may line up all the criminals of the UN, the ICJ, and accompanying NGOs against a wall and gun them down if they come to Israel making problems.
******************** I believe the General Assembly of the UN has an Islamonazi majority. A good reason why all decent democracies should pull out of the UN.
<Heinr...@mailgate.org> wrote: >As usual, you left out the part about the IDF eating their >palestinian >prey after they kill them. It’s the reason the dead palestinian >numbers are so low and the missing count is so high.
Nonsense. Pallies haul them away to their top restaurants.
Cider-Braised Palestinian Kid
8 small sage leaves 1 Palestinian Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture) 2 Tbsp. chicken fat 1 medium onion, chopped coarsely 1 carrot, chopped coarsely 1 small turnip, chopped coarsely 2 cups apple cider or apple juice 1 bouquet garni made by tying together 3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf 1/4 cup parsley, chopped Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil, add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2 hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm. Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the juices and sprinkle with the parsley. Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Pallies.
Deborah
http://tinyurl.com/ddkek (8th post) ________________________________ # 25 Franklin Brown Says: June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am What nonsense!
The posting clearly states that it’s a Palestinian recipe, NOT Israeli or Zionist. And everyone knows that a kid is a baby goat.
Why you people have to twist every single thing into something sinister is beyond me. You are just a bunch of opportunistic racists, nothing more, nothing less.
# 54 David Goodman Says: June 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm All you have to do is look at the most horrendous sights of inter- racial or inter-religious disputes, and see that more than 80% of the cases involve muslim fundamentalists. OK, there are extremists on every side, we have had our share of noisy minorities, however, in most societies, the noisy extremists do not call the cards. They are a minority, noisy, the role of the doom profits - everyone has them - marginally. But, where the Palestinians and Arab countries in general are concerned, this minority is the leadership, and it is extreme in it’s views, in it’s goals and aspirations. Terrorism, bombings, killings, anything bloody will do. Imagine having a neighbor like this, and let me see YOU tell HIM what he should and shouldn’t do. P.S. The recipe calls for goat, a kid is a goat. As can bee seen by the addition of: (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture).
# 55 That's Insane Says: June 24, 2008 at 12:51 am David Goodman, do you still claim “kid” means “goat”?:
Cider-Braised Jewish Kid
8 small sage leaves 1 Jewish Kid (can substitute pork, rattlesnake, or vulture) 2 Tbsp. chicken fat 1 medium onion, chopped coarsely 1 carrot, chopped coarsely 1 small turnip, chopped coarsely 2 cups apple cider or apple juice 1 bouquet garni made by tying together 3 sprigs of parsley, 2 sprigs of thyme and 1/2 bay leaf 1/4 cup parsley, chopped
Divide the sage leaves into equal portions and dress the kid.
In a large flameproof casserole, melt the fat over a high flame.
Brown the kid in the melted fat, and then remove and reduce the flame. Add the onion, carrot and turnip, cover and let simmer for an hour.
Place the kid on vegetables and pour on the cider. Bring to a boil, add the bouquet garni, cover and transfer to a medium oven for 2 hours.
Remove the kid from the casserole and set aside to keep warm. Strain the liquids in the casserole, pressing down on the vegetables to squeeze out the liquids.
Place the kid on a warmed serving platter, pour over some of the juices and sprinkle with the parsley. Serve the remaining juices separately.
Serves lots of Kikes.
# 56 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says: June 24, 2008 at 7:11 am Clever. Franklin Brown & David Goodman’s arguments that kid means goat, have been shown to be what they are — a lie. Scratch a liar find a thief. Both men are ZIONISTS, both SUPPORT THEFT, since that is what ISRAEL is based on — THEFT.
# 57 Mieko Fujimoto Says: June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am I am ashamed to say we eat very many foods in Japan that should be forbidden. I do not. People in my country do. Eating people is something we would never consider in Japan. I wonder if they eat people in Israel? How else would this person write a recipe like this? It is not funny, so what is the point? It must be a real cannibal recipe. Maybe the person is mentally ill though. It is hard to tell. Zionist are all mentally ill. They treat Palestinians like America treated Japan. Two nuclear bombs. Genocide.
# 58 NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL Says: June 26, 2008 at 2:15 am Deborah Sharavi, do you enjoy being a cannibal?
# 59 Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says: June 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm When they wanna see How evil people could be They’ll just remember Deborah Sharavi’s “recipe”
Charles G. Says: July 5, 2008 at 6:13 pm Inappropriate. Dead children are not fodder for zionist, demented humor.
Eric Lindstrom Says: July 6, 2008 at 10:41 pm Another way for the author to say she wants all Palestinians dead. Hate is expressed in many forms.
R.C. Says: July 7, 2008 at 6:07 am This butcher’s cur is venom-mouthed…
Tania Says: July 7, 2008 at 6:35 am Deborah Sharavi probably stuck pins in her dolls and pulled wings off butterflies.
Matt G. Says: July 9, 2008 at 2:43 am If Zionism were Judaism, anti-Semitism would be a moral imperative. The zionist, cannibalistic “recipe”, proves it.
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says: July 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm e Excellent point, Matt G. This vile, zionist, cannibalistic “recipe”, is proof of your insightful comment: If Zionism were Judaism, anti-Semitism would be a moral imperative.
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says: July 16, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Deborah Sharavi Oct 14 2004, 12:02 pm
Michael W Cook wrote: > You’re fucking sick, Deborah and you disgust me.
Aw shucks. And I never even got around to Palestinian Dessert Trifle. Deborah http://tinyurl.com/ddkek 22nd post
Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Field Says: July 17, 2008 at 4:35 am Deborah Sharavi Oct 15 2004, 1:48 pm
“torresD” wrote: >To make light of a Palestinian child and offer >a receipe for cooking the Palestinan child and >in addition offer a dessert recipe using the meat, >flesh of Palestinian children is despicable.
Typical hypocrisy from Dianne Torres. If the recipe had called for a JEWISH kid, Torres would have been at the board in an instant, pouding knife and fork, and singing in happy anticipation: “Love to eat them Jew kids Jews is whut I loves to eat Bite dey little heads off Nibble on they tiny feet!” And when her repast was delayed, she would pound harder on the board with her knife and fork, and bellow (to the tune of Zum Gali Gali); “FOOD! Waiter, waiter waiter FOOD! waiter, waiter! “FOOD! Waiter, waiter waiter FOOD! waiter, waiter!” Deborah http://tinyurl.com/ddkek 41st post. Eric Roth Says: July 17, 2008 at 6:40 am
The pathetic attempts by the zionazis posting here to apologise for this disgusting woman’s filth is obscene. This has nothing to do with a young goat. It was this sick person’s hate coming to the fore. Sharavi is not fit to take her daily quota of oxygen.
Angeles Déesse Says: July 27, 2008 at 7:50 am
Sick, sick, sick… Eric Roth, you are correct. deborah sharavi is an oxygen thief.
