http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=48585&d=19&m=7&y=2004
The Rule of Law and the Rule of Exceptions
Hassan Tahsin
Â
In an attempt to put an end to the Arab and international demand to force Israel to reveal its nuclear program, Dr. Mohammad El-Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency went to Israel on a visit that was doomed to failure even before he set out: The Israeli government had announced before the visit that they would not allow anyone to visit their nuclear establishments.
El-Baradei went any way. After a helicopter tour over Israel, which did not allow him to see anything, he issued statements that pleased Israel and enabled the American administration to continue its protection of Israel from international demands for an inquiry into its nuclear weapons stock.
And as is customary now in international policies, the fundamental principle of which is double standard and taking care of oneâs own interests regardless of how they harm others, Western powers did not have anything to say about Israelâs refusal to defy international covenants. But this tolerance of nuclear programs was strictly in the case of Israel.
The American administration had tough words for Iran. It threatened to refer Iranâs nuclear issue to the Security Council so that it could punish Tehran.
In the Far East, the style of containing nuclear proliferation is a different one: After finding that arrogance will not get it anywhere, Washington is using every diplomatic nicety in its bag of tricks and absolute politeness in addressing North Korea in order to persuade it to relinquish its nuclear program. This politeness in tone is due to the fact North Korea is backed by China. In contrast, Iran has no oneâs backing. It is also guilty of being a Muslim country and, ipso facto, not entitled to have nuclear capability. The West feels that it has already done the Muslim world more favors than it deserves by tolerating Pakistan as a nuclear power.
Why donât the United States of America and major European powers treat Israel in the same way they treat Iran, North Korea or any other country when the offenses are the same?
There are two reasons. First, the strategic interests of big powers and second, the policy of confronting Islam, which they have labeled after the fall of communism as their No.1 enemy. Both these reasons dictate that Israel, a country the West implanted in the Arab region for a variety of reasons, must be protected in every way -- with military hardware, diplomatic backing, Security Council vetoes and contemptuous dismissal of judgments by international courts.
One would expect a country that never stops bragging about its democracy to show respect for judicial verdicts. On July 9, the International Court of Justice gave its ruling on the wall Israel is building through the Palestinian land. The court ruled that the wall was illegal, must be demolished and the Palestinians compensated.
And as usual, Israel rejected the courtâs decision and confirmed its contempt for the ruling by continuing the construction of the wall. As usual, Washington hurried to support the Israeli position and announced that the International Court of Justice was not the suitable forum to discuss such political issues. Refusing to admit the fact that seizing othersâ lands is a crime to be judged on merits and not a political issue is not what one would expect from the policeman of the world.
Now that the next stage in the battle is for the Arab countries to move the issue to the United Nations General Assembly, it is certain that the world body will witness a bitter war between Arab groups on one side and Israel and the US on the other side.
But the unfortunate reality of double standard means that a decision in favor of the Arab position will not mean anything for the cause of justice and international law.
Even if the UN rules that the wall is illegal, Israel will refuse to obey the ruling and defy international law. And to judge by Americaâs record, Washington will support Israel in violating international law whether it comes as a ruling by the General Assembly or the Security Council.
The US, armed with its veto, will be there on Israelâs corner defending its right to kill and destroy.
Such a clearly unjust position will ensure the continuity of turbulence in the Middle East. This, in turn will affect international peace and security.
I would like to ask two questions: Is the violation and defiance of international ruling and law considered to be one of the bases of Western democracy? And whether lies and deceit are the essence of Western democracy that the US wants to impose on the region?
