The UN’s ‘International Law’

The UN’s ‘International Law’
Vol: 25 Issue: 22 Wednesday, October 22, 2003

The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution demanding that Israel halt the construction of a controversial security barrier separating Israel from Palestinian areas in the West Bank.

One hundred and forty-four countries voted with the UN to demand Israel halt construction of its security fence. Backed by the 15-member European Union, the resolution stated that the fence is “in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law.”

This is particularly interesting. There is an international law against building a fence around your border?

How many countries, do you suppose, have border fences? Lessee, America has fenced portions of its southern border to prevent illegal aliens from sneaking into the country. There are even fenced areas along the US-Canadian border.

So where is the UN resolution condemning the US for its border fences?

Just for the record, there is no international law that forbids countries from building border fences. But there IS an international law that forbids the UN from involving itself in the internal domestic affairs of a member state. It is part of the UN’s own charter.

Israel, although the UN doesn’t like to admit it, is a member state of the UN. On the other hand, there is no state of Palestine. What the Palestinians claim as their state is legally, under international law, Israel.

If not, then California and Texas are not part of America, since we got them the same way. We won them in a war.

The same way Israel got possession of the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt. Israel WON possesion of them in a war of aggression STARTED by the other side.

On June 1, 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza and the Gaza Strip were part of Egypt. Egypt and Jordan were among the combatants defeated by Isrel in the Six Days’ War. Had the Arabs won, would the UN now be condemning Yasser Arafat for fencing out the Jews? Unlikely. There wouldn’t BE any Jews.

But the Arabs lost. When the war was over, the West Bank and Gaza were part of Israel. Nothing unusual about that. There is only so much land. Nobody will make anymore. That is how countries are built. Every country on the face of the planet was once somebody else’s land. Every UN member state used to be something else.

Every Arab state in the UN was created by the same pen that drew the borders of Israel at the San Remo Conference in 1923.

Since British Foreign Secretary Winston Churchill drew the borders of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, if their borders are legitimate, then Israel’s is equally legitimate.


In this case, however, the UN finds itself interfering in the domestic affairs of a member state on behalf of an insurgent population. If the UN is going to pontificate about ‘international law’, they should start there.

That is all the UN is doing is pontificating — because there is no such thing as ‘international law’. If there were, the UN would be its principle violator.

‘International law’ is what the UN says it is on any given day. Since it doesn’t actually exist in fact, the UN can declare anything it wants to be a violation.

That is how the UN arrived at the conclusion that the legal state of Israel has no right to build a fence through the MIDDLE of its territory — since, under ‘international law’, either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel, or California and Texas are part of Mexico.

The United Nations resolution demands Israel stop building its security fence, but contains not a single word referencing why the fence was necessary in the first place.

“As long as the majority in this assembly will pander and tolerate these rituals, no one should wonder why the victims of terrorism and those who hope for peace look elsewhere for guidance, protection and inspiration,” Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman said after the vote.

The resolution requests Secretary-General Kofi Annan to submit periodic reports on Israel’s compliance, with the first due within one month. Once the report is received, it says, “further actions should be considered, if necessary, within the United Nations system.”

The resolution “demands that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law.”

As we’ve already pointed out, there is no ‘relevant provision of international law’ that is applicable here. The proof is in the fact that the UN resolution fails to cite the ‘relevant provision’ that Israel is in contravention of.

Gillerman demanded to know whether any nation “seriously thinks it legitimate for the secretary-general to focus a report on Israeli security measures but not on Palestinian violations and terrorism that necessitate those measures.”

Think of it! Israel is a UN member state. The Palestinians are an insurgent rebel population using terrorism against women and children to force Israel to surrender land legally annexed following its victory in a war of aggression forced upon them by neighboring states.

The United Nations is siding with the insurgent rebels against a UN member state, to the point where they have passed a resolution that, in effect, forbids the member state from protecting its citizens against attack by rebel insurgents!

Now we turn again to the words of the prophet Zechariah, who predicted this exact situation, 2,500 years ago.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

Of all the nations of the world, only Israel, the US, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands voted against the assembly resolution.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s