Yet another decision ignored: West Bank separation wall
Photo courtesy of Jaaman Rock, Arab Association for Human Rights
Out of line: Ahmadinejad
Photo: Reuters
Now The Hague's okay?
The International Court of Justice is no good when it criticizes Israel, but it's okay to criticize Iran?
As part of Israel's intensive international campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which Israel claims presents an existential threat to its security, we learned this week that Israel has opened an additional front against President Ahmadinejad: Several diplomats say they are planning to turn to the International Court of Justice to charge the Iranian leader with crimes against humanity. The catalyst for the case, it has been reported, stems from his statements about Jews.
New battleground
Ronen Bergman
Israeli forum set to demand International Court of Justice in The Hague launch legal proceedings against Iranian president for conspiring to commit crimes against humanity, genocide
First of all, let me state categorically: Ahmadinejad's statements about the Jewish question are entirely out of order and should be rejected outright. As a human being, an Arab and as a Palestinian who is proud of his nationality, the threats this leader ascribes to Jews makes me sick. It should be noted, too, that his declarations do untold damage to the Islamic nation overall, and to the Palestinian people in particular. This damage will be difficult, if at all possible, to reverse.
We have a national and moral responsibility to declare, loud and clear, that the Jewish people experienced a systematic attempt at genocide by an evil man named Adolf Hitler during World War II. We must internalize the trauma suffered by the Jewish people in Europe, and we must fight to ensure that such a crime is never repeated.
Palestinian suffering
At the same time, we must work just as hard to get the enlightened nations of the world to internalize just what the Palestinian people has experienced over the last 40 years of Israeli occupation. This occupation has corrupted people and trampled all humanitarian feeling.
Israeli diplomats are certainly entitled to press charges at the Hague. But the moves brings up a real question: The ink has yet to dry on the ICC decision condemning the racist fence Israel is building on occupied Palestinian land.
Selective jurisdiction
For those of us with short, selective memories, the Israeli government sent no representatives to those proceedings, and stubbornly refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court to judge the case. The justices eventually decided the fence is illegal and in violation of several international treaties.
In clear, unmistakable language, they called on Israel to cease construction, to tear down sections of the wall that have already been built, and compensate land owners who were removed from their lands.
As expected, Israel failed to honor that decision, denounced the court and continued to build the wall. More than that: Israel is the world's leader in ignoring UN and Security Council decisions. There is not enough space in this column to list the anti-Israel decisions of that organization, but Israel continues to live Ben-Gurion's mantra: Who cares about the UN?
Fundamental hypocrisy
To the esteemed diplomats preparing the case against Ahmadinejad: If the International Court of Justice in the Hague has no jurisdiction over your wall, why do you consider it such a competent authority with regard to Iran? Can somebody please explain to me Israel's double standard with regard to The Hague – The ICJ is great when it serves my interests, but it is too biased to rule cases I could stand to lose?
And essentially, why go all the way to The Hague? In 1959 Israel's Supreme Court decided evacuees from Ikrit and Bira'am should be allowed to return to their homes. A lot has happened since then, but nothing has changed.
On the other hand, when the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to racism by affirming the "citizenship law" that differentiates between Palestinians inside and outside the green line, the government praised the decision, and quickly moved to embrace the decision. So despite the decision, the evacuees never returned to their homes, whereas other Palestinians, who managed to return will once again be expelled to the occupied territories. If that isn't racial discrimination, what is?
Zohair Androus is the editor of the Arab-Israeli newspaper "Kul al-Arab"
