It is readily apparent why Israel, the US, Canada, and other nations complicit in the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestine were opposed to having the International Court of Justice (ICJ) deliberate over the illegal land grab dissembling as a security fence to the gullible. The ICJ has declared the building of the apartheid wall in the West Bank, by 14 votes to one (lone American judge), as “contrary to international law.” The ICJ also charges Israel to make reparation for the monstrous wall.
Supporters of Zionists’ ethnic cleansing point out that the rulings of the ICJ are not legally binding. This is merely further obfuscation. The binding nature of the court’s legal opinion is hardly a matter of true concern for Zionists. After all there is a plethora of legally-binding UN Security Council Resolutions to which Israel is in longstanding violation. Then there are the contraventions of the legally-binding Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions. Relevant resolutions are mentioned in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ.
But why should the legality of an action be the binding metric of humans? Surely the morality of human actions supersedes legality. Lawrence Kohlberg, who defied contradiction by being both a moral psychologist and Zionist, certainly thought so. Kohlberg postulated six stages of moral development. Behavior guided by the legality of actions would conform to a law-and-order orientation of a conventional level of moral development. The final stage of post-conventional morality sees behavior and conscience as guided by loftier universal principles. Measuring humanity should be guided rather by morality. In the aftermath of WWII a demand arose out of Nürnberg: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore [individuals] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”
People have to determine their morality from within themselves. Albert Einstein once cautioned, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Looking to war criminals like President George Bush, Prime Minister Blair, or Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who operate at a pre-conventional level of morality, as moral exemplars is not the path to peace nor justice. Their past misdeeds combined with the blatant lies that Bush, Blair, and Sharon have heaped repeatedly upon a gullible public to launch their murderous onslaughts against Arabs disqualifies them as legal, moral, and political leaders.
Fooling Moore Again
In his film Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore saved his strongest ridicule for last. Moore depicts Bush’s self-inflicted tribute to foolishness. As captured in an earlier story, the deserter/war president gave a sadly amusing and semantically bludgeoned rendition of an old proverb on deceiving people. If Bush had only duped Americans once, but Americans have been duped on mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction, yellow cake from Niger, aluminum rods for a mushroom cloud, and chemical dispersing drones off the Florida coast. Yet Bush and his fellow chickenhawks continue to repeat the big lie.
Even though Moore won’t be fooled by Bush or Blair, he was fooled once by the war criminal Gen. Wesley Clark. Moore’s stated goal is to see Bush booted out of office. Is that a sufficient goal in itself? While the invasion of Vietnam was raging, was it sufficient to have President Lyndon Johnson removed from office?
Why is Moore not steering clear of Vietnam War criminal John Kerry? Kerry readily admits that he will bolster troop numbers in the occupation of Iraq. He staunchly supports the insidious Zionist project in Palestine.
Kerry’s immediate response to the ICJ ruling on the wall was telling: “I am deeply disappointed by today’s International Court of Justice ruling related to Israel’s security fence [sic]. Israel’s fence [sic] is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence [sic] is an important tool in Israel’s fight against terrorism. It is not a matter for the ICJ.”
The ICJ, however, ruled out self-defense as legitimating the wall (the ICJ stayed with the designation of “wall” in its proceedings).
As for the contention that the matter of the wall is outside of the court’s purview, the ICJ responded that the “‘political’ character to the question posed … does not suffice to deprive it of its character as a ‘legal question.’”
The court’s grave concern for the question of the wall rendered a stinging rebuke of Israel. It recalled and reaffirmed past resolutions and relevant international laws vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine. The ICJ declared that Israel is “under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law.”
The ICJ’s decision repudiates the Bush-Sharon agreement on the annexation of occupied territory by the scofflaw state of Israel; it is a denial of the US Congress and Senate’s approval of ethnic cleansing. The ICJ ruled, “All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation …”
Israeli and US protestations to the contrary, the ICJ finds that “Israel [is] obliged to comply with the international obligations it has breached by the construction of the wall … and to make reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons affected by the construction of the wall.”
Much as Bush and previous US presidents disregarded international law, Kerry stands poised to carry on the tradition. Director Moore might well ask himself who will be shamed if an elected President Kerry makes a mockery of Americans hoping for something different to Bush. While Americans will suffer the indignity of being mocked, the Palestinians, Iraqis, Haitians, Afghans, and other people in the developing world will pay the ultimate price. Whose morality will be bound by this?
is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at:
Other Recent Articles by Kim Petersen
Importance of Solidarity
* The Progressive Paradox: Defining Viability
* The Shame
* The Wrong Direction
* The Pornography of War
* The Fairy
Tale of Liberation