EDITORIALS

A Miscarriage of Justice

It didn’t really come as much of a surprise. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) came down with a ruling that condemned the security barrier that Israel is building in the West Bank. It was only an advisory judgment. However, the fact that it is legally non-binding does not make it any less politically damaging. The UN General Assembly has already passed another non-binding resolution that calls upon Israel to abide by the ICJ decision. Australia was one of six nations of principle that voted against this miscarriage of justice and morality.

But, the wisdom that motivated our Government’s decision to oppose this misbegotten UN resolution does not appear to be evenly distributed throughout the Australian political spectrum. Democrat Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said that Australia’s nay vote would elicit "concern, if not contempt" from the international community, while Greens Senator Kerry Nettle called it "embarassing." In fact, far more contempt-inducing is the studious disinterest Stott Despoja, Nettle and their party colleagues have evinced towards the deaths of innocent Israelis at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The utter predictability of the judicial travesty at the ICJ stemmed from the composition of the Court. The Court is an arm of the United Nations and its judges are elected by the General Assembly, the same General Assembly where tin- pot third world dictators try to divert attention from their own domestic sins by heaping abuse on the sole democracy in the Middle East – Israel. This is the same UN that allows a beacon of liberty like Libya to chair its Human Rights Commission, and where its Durban anti-racism conference degenerated into an antisemitic feeding frenzy that would have brought a smile to the face of Heinrich Himmler.

The ICJ’s judges are selected through a regional "spoils" system at the UN, from which Israel is the only country excluded. Despite nominal legal independence, the judges from non-democratic countries tend to follow de facto the policy dictates of their home governments. It’s usually healthier for them to do so.

Moreover, the democratic nations of the West almost uniformly opposed the UN General Assembly resolution that referred Israel’s security fence to the ICJ. This opposition arose, in part, because this resolution prejudged the issue by informing the Court what to decide. This prejudgment appeared in segments of the resolution that declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank "illegal", and that asserted that the fence "is in contradiction" to international law. In essence, the ICJ ruling was a classic case of "Alice in Wonderland" justice in which the Queen of Hearts shouts "off with their head," and only then bothers to hold a trial.

Through its rash and highly politicised decision, the Court did grave injury to the already imperfect concept of international law. By injecting itself into a quintessentially political controversy that should be settled between the contending parties, the court inevitably politicised itself and weakened its claim to impartiality. This is especially true in light of the fact that the ICJ accepted a UN resolution that prejudged the issue, thereby transforming itself into just another wing of the highly politicised General Assembly.

Moreover, the Court’s action transformed it into an ally of the General Assembly’s usurpation of the authority of the UN Security Council. Article 12 of the United Nations Charter prohibits the General Assembly from issuing any sort of recommendation on an issue that is under consideration by the Security Council. The Court’s decision essentially contradicts the provisions of the Roadmap peace plan, endorsed by the Security Council. Yet, the General Assembly ignored its own constitution and issued a request to the ICJ anyway.

Even more serious was the manner in which the Court arbitrarily rewrote Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 enshrines the all-important right to self-defence for member nations. But, the ICJ decision declared that self-defence applies only to attacks by other nation states, a ruling that would gut any nation’s right to protect itself against terrorists and other non-state aggressors. Not only did this ruling contravene the wording of the Charter, but it was diametrically opposed to all traditional interpretations of self-defence under international law. With this patently unworkable decision, the ICJ not only rendered itself irrelevant, but it undermined the only real basis for the authority of international law – its moral legitimacy.

Israel’s security fence is entirely proportional to the threat of terrorism, and thus it satisfied the traditional legal requirement to justify actions that might harm others.

After 19,000 terror attacks, over 900 deaths and thousands of injuries, the rationale for the barrier is self-evident to all but the most biased, anti-Israel eyes. Moreover, the fence works – not only are terror attacks down by about 70% since the construction of the first part of the fence, but some northern West Bank towns which were previously terror hot spots, such as Jenin and Nablus, are now responsible for almost no terror attacks. The fence kills no one, and while it doubtless inconveniences many Palestinians, this must be weighed against the gains to both sides in lives by reducing conflict. Furthermore, those inconvenienced are entitled to compensation, and to petition Israel’s courts for changes to the route, as several residents recently did successfully.

Among the worst aspects of the ICJ’s decision is what it does to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. There is only one way forward at the moment, and that route is broadly in line with the Roadmap plan. The Palestinians must fulfil their obligations to fight terrorism, and then a peace deal will become possible that will establish a Palestinian state.

The ICJ judgment will only serve to encourage that traditional irresponsible streak within the Palestinian leadership that has brought them nothing but self-inflicted disaster. The Palestinians have looked to international forums and outside pressure as mechanism to pressure Israel in an attempt to avoid making the concessions that are an essential prerequisite for peace. The just-passed General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel comply with the ICJ is just the initial volley in this campaign.

But the security barrier enjoys overwhelming support within Israel, and neither Ariel Sharon nor any other Israeli Prime Minister will refrain from the completion of the fence. Thus, the ICJ decision constitutes a monumental distraction from the negotiating process that is the only way that peace will be reached between Israel and the Palestinians.

******

The Price of Racism

The rash of racist attacks in Perth seems to have reached fever pitch. In recent months Jewish, African, and Asian owned targets have been defaced with swastikas, racist slogans and posters, bricks, and in the case of one Chinese restaurant, a firebombing earlier this year.

It is of note that the most recent suspects, Damon Paul Blaxall, 28, and Shannon Mark Post, 24, are thought to be members of the Australian National Movement, headed by the infamous racist Jack Van Tongeren. Van Tongeren was released from prison in 2002 after serving 12 years for a series of bombings of Chinese restaurants in the 1980s. Whilst the graffiti attacks cannot be compared to firebombs, the violent attacks on Asian targets certainly recall the worst days of Mr. Van Tongeren’s earlier reign of terror.

Whilst it would be inaccurate to say that Australia is suffering a wave of antisemitism, statistics show there has clearly been a rise in antisemitic incidents around the country. In addition to the graffiti at the Perth Hebrew Congregation, Jewish organisations have received threats in Sydney, and a Jewish man was singled out for attack in Perth in February. Meanwhile, revelations about Australia’s homegrown Islamic terrorists, such as Jack Roche, demonstrate that the local Jewish community is one of their main targets.

Blaxell and Post, arrested on July 20, were caught largely due to the help of footage taken from a security camera at the Perth Hebrew Congregation, where slogans calling for a new Holocaust were sprayed. The surveillance system monitors every individual that enters the building and is of high enough quality that the images of Blaxall and Post were clearly seen by police investigators following the attack.

Such measures are now standard at Jewish institutions throughout the country, after repeated security warnings and a dramatic rise in antisemitic attacks worldwide. Jewish schools, community centres, synagogues and offices have been forced to invest in surveillance cameras, security guards and other protective measures.

But the costs of such measures are crippling for the Jewish community, and the defence of such mainstream targets should surely be considered part of a comprehensive policy of homeland security. The time has come for the government to recognise the threat not only to Jewish targets, but also to community multicultural targets of all descriptions. The latest incidents have underlined that the federal government must find a way to provide funding to help Australia’s diverse communities protect the institutions which make up Australia’s successful multicultural model from both racists and terrorists.