The
July 9 ruling
of the UN's International Court of Justice, condemning the Israeli security
fence, came as no surprise to any of the parties involved. Israel was once
again censured for taking self-defensive measures against a Palestinian
terrorist campaign that continues to enjoy silent acceptance from the United
Nations and its court.
Somewhat more surprising to
HonestReporting was the poor quality of media coverage of the ICJ
ruling. For example, see the alarmist front pages from
Malaysia,
France,
and China,
and this front page from the Florida Ledger: Many news outlets granted undue stature to the ICJ's
non-binding opinion by omitting a number of essential points:
●
OPINION OF THE AMERICAN
JUDGE
The dissenting opinion of the American judge at the ICJ,
Thomas Buergenthal, ruled
that the court should have declined to hear the case at all, since it
lacked sufficient information and evidence. As reported by the
New York Times:
the judge said the court should not have ruled until it had
considered "all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of
Israel's legitimate right of self-defense." He said the impact of
"repeated deadly terror attacks" was something "never really
seriously examined by the court."
Yet Judge Buergenthal's pointed critique of the court's own failure
to take
Palestinian terror into account was not published by
most major news outlets. Typical of most coverage were
Washington Post and
Reuters, which noted Buergenthal's dissent without
describing its essential content.
●
STATEMENTS
OF AMERICAN OFFICIALS
Also absent from most news reports were rejections of the court's
authority by
senior American officials:
Secretary of State Powell said, "We didn't think it should have
gone to the court in the first place," adding further that it is
up to Israel to decide "what reaction they wish to have to it." White
House spokesman Scott McClellan added, "we do not believe that
that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political
issue."
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry issued a
statement expressing "deep disappointment" in the ICJ and affirming
that "Israel's fence is a legitimate response to terror that only
exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.... It
is not a matter for the ICJ." And Senator
Hillary
Clinton said: "It makes no sense for the United
Nations to vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather than opposing terrorism itself."
By omitting these statements, news outlets implied that the ICJ
ruling was broadly accepted, which it certainly was not.
Alan Dershowitz, in an important response to the ruling, adds that
virtually every democracy voted against that court's taking
jurisdiction over the fence case, while nearly every country that
voted to take jurisdiction was a tyranny.
Yet most readers were left with the false impression that the ICJ
condemnation of Israel represented broad-based 'international
opinion.'
[For a backgrounder on the ICJ's ruling, see the report from
BICOM; for a review of the major legal factors involved, see the
article by Laurence E.
Rothenberg and Abraham Bell.]
●
HISTORY OF ICJ OPINIONS
Most news outlets acknowledged that the ICJ's ruling on the
security fence has no binding significance, but that didn't stop the
Washington Post from slipping into a South Africa
comparison:
Although the ruling, which was requested by the U.N. General
Assembly, is nonbinding, the court's opinions carry moral and
political weight. Past decisions have been used to pressure
governments in the court of public opinion, such as a ruling in 1971
against South Africa's occupation of Namibia, which led to Namibia's
independence and fueled an economic boycott against South Africa's
white-minority government.
It's curious that among all
24 advisory
opinions delivered by the ICJ since 1947, the Washington Post
chose this example as context for the anti-Israel ruling. No mention
is made of the numerous cases in which ICJ rulings were simply
ignored, such as the case brought against US involvement in Nicaragua
in 1984, or Argentina's rejection of a 1977 ICJ ruling that granted
Chile dominion over disputed islands.
Comments to Washington Post:
letters@washpost.com
* * *
The security fence has already proven itself as an
essential deterrent against Palestinian terrorism, but even it
doesn't provide 100% protection. This morning's
deadly bombing in Tel Aviv (pictured at right), perpetrated by Yassir
Arafat's Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades, was immediately labeled by Prime
Minister Sharon as "the first murder under the auspices of the
International Court of Justice's ruling."
When reporting on the ICJ ruling, did your local paper
include 1) Judge Buergenthal's statement condemning his own court, 2)
the lack of support for the decision among democratic nations, and 3)
the history of ICJ opinions, which have been regularly rejected by UN
members?
This is a critical time for HonestReporting
subscribers to type out a letter to your local editor, giving
the other side of the story ― over a thousand Israelis killed
by Palestinian terror in the past four years, and the proven
effectiveness of the security fence as a deterrent. For those
who are capable, write an op-ed, using the talking
points above, and these more general points (courtesy
The Israel
Project):
~ What would America do if
time and again we had been attacked by terrorists who
infiltrated our stores, pizza parlors, buses and holiday
celebrations to deliberately kill women and children?
Wouldn't we want a fence?
~ Supporters of Israel,
and even Israeli officials themselves, deeply regret that the
security fence is needed. We all know that the fence can
cause inconveniences. But isn't saving just one life worth
it? Shouldn't we stop other mothers from losing their
children in terrorist attacks?
~ The security fence is a
temporary and nonviolent way to reduce terrorism. It is
already saving lives. When the terrorism stops, the fence can
be taken down.
~ The route of the fence
has been determined by how to stop terrorists from killing
innocent people. However, in order to reduce inconveniences
to Palestinians, the
Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the fence must in
some places be moved to make things easier for the
Palestinians. Israel is a democracy committed to rule of law
and will indeed follow this court decision.
[See also
this fine page on the security fence and its supporters
from the Council of Presidents.]
Letter-writing guidelines: See our
Contact the Media page for links to local papers. When
writing a letter, be sure to include full name, full
address, day and evening phone numbers. Letters should be
succinct (up to 250 words), while op-ed's can be approximately
600-800 words. Questions? Drop us a line:
action@honestreporting.com
HonestReporting
