No Gin & Tonic in the Hair, Please

If I haven’t written about the International Court of Justice ruling against Israel’s security fence — well, so what? The ICJ’s decision is about as sensible and carries as much weight as David Hasselhoff’s thoughts on quantum mechanics.

But there were a couple things about the Court I didn’t know. Fortunately, Krauthammer does. Read:

Among various principles invoked by the International Court of Justice in its highly publicized decision on Israel’s security fence is this one: It is a violation of international law for Jews to be living in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem.


What makes the travesty complete is that this denial of Israel’s right to defend itself because doing so might violate “humanitarian” rights was read in open court by the chief judge representing China, whose government massacred hundreds of its own citizens demonstrating peacefully in Tiananmen Square.


Moreover, the court had no jurisdiction to take this case. It is a court of arbitration, which requires the consent of both parties. The Israelis, knowing the deck was stacked, refused to give it. Not only did the United States declare this issue outside the boundaries of this court, so did the European Union and Russia, hardly Zionist agents.


In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states — one Jewish, one Arab. When the British pulled out and Israel proclaimed its independence, five Arab countries responded immediately by declaring war and invading Israel with the announced intention of destroying the newborn state. How does the court render this event? “[O]n 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence . . . armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States.”

Jot those little tidbits down, if you would. Might be useful for cocktail party chatter in Georgetown.

Just know when to duck a thrown drink.