law enforcement issue

The United Nations was urged by the International Court of Justice yesterday to enforce the Court’s ruling that Israel should tear down its 450-mile separation barrier and compensate the Palestinians for the hardship it has caused. []

This is what I call internationalism. Where up is down, right is wrong, and terrorists are freedom fighters. This is the indispensable bureaucratic apparatus from which Kerry will seek approval for all his foreign policy decisions.

It just goes to show that maybe the ACLU-types are right, terrorists do have rights. It is evidently illegal to keep terrorists from crossing your border. According to the UN Israel is in defiance of international law by building a wall separating Israel from 'Palestinian territory'. We all know how Kerry feels about breaking international law especially when it comes to the war on terror. Given that there is no state of Palestine surely there can be no legal border, therefore no state of war, and apparently no good reason to keep out homicide bombers. The ICJ ruled that Palestinians have a right to free movement. (Many Palestinians have jobs in Israel, or occupied Palestine if you prefer, for instance.)

Remember those foreign leaders who want Kerry to win the election? In Kerry's own words, "I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that."

The war on terror is... [a] law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world. [Kerry on Meet the Press, April 18, 2004.]

I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. [John Kerry, 1971]

I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world, which will do a number of things. [John Kerry, 2004]

Turn over what now? What is Kerry's position on this International Court of Justice ruling? Given the rise of anti-semitism in Europe and the progressive-appeasement, 'let's break the cycle of violence' thinking that seems to pervade in internationalist circles we should think about what a Kerry Presidency would really mean for the war on terror.

The Palestinians cannot be said to be seeking peace in any sense of the word, yet the UN sees Israel's lack of surrender to terror as the impediment to peace. This court ruling is just one example of that view. If only we would have continued to play the victim after 9/11 we might be viewed with more esteem in Europe.

"Now, it is the responsibility of the international community, it is the responsibility of the U.N., to put (in place) a mechanism to commit Israel to this decision," Qureia told reporters after the meeting. []

The terror will continue whether or not Israel takes down their barrier, but with it up terrorists will have a much harder time getting into Israel.

So what about Kerry on this issue? Believe it or not Kerry has already been on both sides of this issue. Are you surprised? First he was against the barrier:

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the 'Green Line,' cutting deeply into Palestinian areas," Kerry told members of the Arab-American Institute in October 2003, a month after he had announced his candidacy. "We do not need another barrier to peace." He went on to say that the barrier was a "provocative and counterproductive measure" that was not in Israel's interest.

Evidently someone told him that there are Jewish voters here in the US because he then put 'the real deal' into reverse:

Assured of the nomination, Kerry appears to have reversed his position on the West Bank barrier, which was ruled illegal Friday by the International Court of Justice. "John Kerry supports the construction of Israel's security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel," the June statement reads. "The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens. He believes the security fence is not a matter for the International Court of Justice."

I wonder what would make him switch his position back? Perhaps when he has to get the vaulted cooperation of the international community and they tell him no. Which brings up the issue of whether Kerry's new position is now at odds with International Law. Would his administration follow International Law in this matter or will he pursue the reckless-American-cowboy-unilateralist approach?

Will the real John Kerry please stand up? It's no wonder voters don't know who he is.

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 11, 2004 2:35 AM