HOME 

 

The World Hates Us: Do we Join It?

 

By Rabbi David Eidensohn

 

            The May 5, New York Times, in an article by Neil A Lewis, announces, "U.S. to Renounce Its Role in Pact for World Tribunal." The new International Criminal Court is to be a "permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes." The Clinton administration signed the treaty for the court, but now the Bush administration will "unsign" the treaty. Sixty nations have signed the treaty to make the International Criminal Court and it is scheduled to begin operations next year in The Hague. "It will become the first new international judicial body since the International Court of Justice, or World Court, was created in 1945 to adjudicate disputes between states," says the Times. Why did President Bush back out of the American signature on the treaty?

            One reason is that the court claims a higher power than national sovereignty. The court would effectively rule America.  It could summon a president, a defense minister, or an individual soldier, try them and incarcerate them. It could obtain the secret papers of a country whose soldiers or officers are tried. Another reason is that the world hates America, and the court will be peopled with those who want to poke America in the eye. The end of April 2002 saw the ridiculous situation whereby America was "restored" to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, from which the UN expelled it last year in favor of Sudan, the world's most savage country. The "restoration" of America' seat on the commission was done in a manner commensurate with a world body seeking to put America in its place. The only hope is for America to wake up and put the globalists in their place. America is here, and you are there, and stay there, please.

            Why do they hate us? Why can President Bush not find a single European country willing to join it in an assault on Iraq, before that ferocious dictator develops atomic bombs? Did Europe forget that America saved it twice from German aggression? Did Europe forget that the Marshal Plan saved Europe after the Second World War? Nobody could believe this based upon the constant anti-American feelings in Europe, especially in France.  DeGaulle, the head of the French resistance, who had nothing except American largesse to regain his country, rewarded America by fighting it politically and proclaiming his "neutrality" in the Cold War. The French at one time pointed their atomic weapons not only at Russia, but also at America. The leading intellectual in France, Jean-Paul Sartre, a former resistance fighter, was not only anti-American; he was a radical Chinese-type Communist Maoist. Is this what we got for supplying him and his country with hope?

             In England Tony Blair, despite his warm ties to American presidents, wavers on his original commitment to fight together with America in Iraq. Did England forget who saved them in the First and Second World War? Did England forget the Marshal Plan, which came at a time when England was struggling?

            What kind of world is it, the one that will have a global court? What kind of world will decide the fate of previously sovereign nations? Globalization means empowering what kind of people? The Chinese government does not recognize basic human rights. When people make known their protests, they turn out the tanks to squash men, women and children. The Arab world believes that the Jews blew up the Twin Towers to frame the Arabs. Official papers and leading thinkers teach that Jews drink the blood of Moslems. The United Nations has passed outrageous resolutions about Israel, whereby it officially makes the murderers the victims, and the victims, the murderers.

            It is bad enough for America to be under the tender mercies of Europe, China, Islam and the United Nations. There is always Russia, even with the new smile, basking in the light of huge contributions of American dollars, and yet unable to reach a treaty on nuclear weapons with America. Russia has recently announced major war games with China. One might think that America would have a friend in the Vatican, but the Vatican considers America views on abortion to be murder. Would a Catholic judge accept a case against America based upon destruction of a fetus, considered a "child"? Wherever America turns, somebody thinks we are criminals. Not long ago in Afghanistan, an America pilot was ordered by his superiors to bomb some people, who were, it was discovered, not the enemy but Canadian soldiers. Could the relatives of these soldiers go to the International Criminal Court and claim that the people who did this, with their advanced computers and incredibly accurate systems, obviously intended to do it, or were negligent and therefore culpable of criminal activity? That is why we "unsigned" the treaty for the International Criminal Court.

            Do not let this relax you. The court, supported now by sixty countries, does not consider itself bound by those renegade countries that oppose globalization. It can surely claim authority over American assets in all of the sixty countries who have signed for the court. It can therefore punish America by ruling that the assets of America or Americans in sixty countries are forfeit if America does not do what it wants. It can rule against Americans and their interests, and force them to show up and defend themselves in the court. It might decide to arrest an America who happened to be in a country that recognizes the court as the supreme international authority. It could declare it illegal to trade with a country that has not signed the convention, because it harbors criminals. Nobody knows what it can do: it can, like the United States Supreme Court in the nineteenth century, suddenly declare its jurisdiction over the other branches of government, and nobody can do anything about it.

Indeed, the article in the Times compares the International Court's opportunities as commensurate with the United States Supreme Court 1803 Marbury v. Madison that "courts could subject the other branches of government to its jurisdiction." This, according to a senior Clinton official, is the reason America should support the court. If not, the court will create itself, without American influence, and this will be bad for other countries, such as Israel. I disagree. How can we support a court when we know exactly what people out there are going to do? They are going to bash America, and they are going to crush Israel and any country that stands up to the international cartel of people who do not practice or even preach the values we stand for.

            Why are we so distant from everybody else? One reason is that America is several centuries old, whereas most of the world is comprised of styles of government that are only a few decades old. America is rich, and others are poor. Russia is less than twenty-five years old. Communism died in the eighties, but so unstable is the situation in Russia that nobody is sure what will happen. Such a country has nothing stable and nothing real to believe in or to support it. It can invent values and discard them, because it is all the same in the newness of the moment. Its leaders are corrupt, and its people miserable. Idealism is for the rich, for the Americans. Other countries eke out a living and never know what will happen down the road. In the interim, people amuse themselves by hating minorities, the prosperous, or the Americans. As Thomas Friedman points out, Arab governments deliberately provoke hate and even terror to deflect the misery of the masses. This technique is not restricted to Arabs. The governments of miserable people inspire hate, nationalism, religious fervor, or other inimical pastimes, to deflect the unsolvable wretchedness of daily life.

            How old is China, with its billion people or more? After the Second World War, it was Nationalist China, and then Communism triumphed. Maoism declined and was replaced by other philosophies. This new country is unstable and people are controlled with tanks. When Chinese people see America, its political freedom, its civilized government, they want the same for themselves. The government therefore incites them to hate America. Communist China is now a world power only because of the huge amount of money America invested in it with business deals. These American businesses that fatten by building a monster don't mind. The problem is that America is endangering itself because money makes military might, and American dollars are building missiles pointed at New York. The more China prospers, the more it wants freedoms like America, and the more hate the government must spread about America in order to deflect these feelings. All of this is fueled by American dollars. I went to order some office supplies, and could get nothing that was not made in China. Don't American workers mean something? American workers cost too much.

            Let us leave Asia and Euro-Asia, Russia and China, and come to Europe. They don't love us there. We mentioned how strange it was that people, like the French, who owe us so much, dislike us so much. To be honest, it's not so simple. Charles De Gaulle was the great hater of America and Britain. He didn't hate them when he fled France on a plane and landed in England. He didn't hate them when America poured Marshal Plan money into France and saved it from Communism. What happened?

            It hurts, but we have to tell the truth. America provoked De Gaulle, that is, Eisenhower did. It began in the Second World War. France, in both the First and Second World War, bore the brunt of the German war machine. When America landed in France towards the end of the war, the French wanted to conquer Paris, and to have an important role in the defeat of Germany. Eisenhower refused. He fought tooth and nail against liberating Paris, against the advice of Patton, until events forced him to take Paris. He blocked the French army out of the triumphant entry into Germany, rubbing salt into the shame of a proud country. That is how it began.

            In 1956, Egypt seized the Suez Canal. This seizure was illegal, because the Canal did not belong to Egypt. Britain and France initiated military action, but Eisenhower forced them out. This broke the Western Alliance. Why did Eisenhower do this? He had a choice: either supporting his former allies, or rather clients, or Arab nationalism. He chose to support Arab nationalism. They had oil. France and Britain did not, and were even a drain on American resources. Now that America wants to fight an Arab nation, Iraq, can we blame France and Britain for refusing to join and suffer from oil embargoes?

            Today President Bush is brutally forcing Israel to restrain itself from basic self-defense. When terrorists, organized by the PLO and other pro-Iraq Arabs blew up Israelis on buses, hotels, and synagogues, Israel responded by going into PLO areas and closing down huge munitions factors and seizing murderers. Bush was furious. He ordered Israel "out immediately." This is a continuity of the Eisenhower policy of oil before morals. America wants that pipeline flowing with oil, and the rich Republicans want those markets pumping up the cash registers. In China and in the Middle East, America shows that money is the only important thing. The world sees that, and rejects American leadership.

            A country where some very rich people deliberately build up our worst enemies, the Chinese and the Arabs, and break the back of our closest allies and friends, can become rich, but not loved. The global community will continue to take our money, but since we have no moral clarity, it will not respect us for our values. What we really value is money. If we continue to sell ourselves for it, we don't know how long we will have it. The world court will, together with the European Union and the United Nations, slowly but steadily convince us of the fact that we are hated and others will control the world.

            Europe has faced the fact that sovereignty means war. Globalism therefore means peace. Small countries have small resources and poverty. Large countries, such as United Europe, have powerful banks and resources that lift the standard of living of the small countries. A world with nuclear sovereign countries is a frightening one. Pakistan and India will probably fight again. India is massing troops near Pakistan for war games. Now, however, they have nuclear weapons. How long will it be before someone decides to use them? Globalism would deny to sovereign states the power to bring nuclear fire onto the planet. Globalism would deny the chauvinism and jingoism that produced so many wars and struggles. It has a powerful appeal. As long as America stands in the light of G-d's Law as a shining angel of goodness, people will notice and be inspired. When America sells its soul for oil, the world will be hostile. Eventually, a combined Europe, China and Russia, backed by Arab countries and the Third World, will put a dent into our super-power ego. We will try to sell our souls for a better deal, but eventually, we will have to bow down. Only then, will we find our moral voice, and pray, and by then, we will need so much prayer, heaven forefend.

            The ball is in the hands of President Bush. He is a Republican, a party torn by two striving elements, the religious right and secular wealthy business people. President Bush tries to satisfy both elements of his party. He is a close friend of Billy Graham, a family friend from way back, and proclaims his faith and opposes abortion. On the other hand, when the religious right rallies for Israel, President Bush has other friends, those in the energy field, whose ties with oil countries are very dear, and frankly driven by money.

            When President Bush looks out there in the world, he sees that everyone hates him. He can't get help with Iraq. He can't find anyone to realize that Israel has a right to defend itself against terror. What is his next move?

            On the one hand, President Bush can do what Secretary of State Powell wants. He can accept that the world is important, and that America must modify its ways to find favor with China, Russia, Europe and the others who despise our Sinaitic values. Or else, President Bush can realize that America's blessings are from G-d, and that the secular, unstable and hating world is the enemy. If, hopefully, he does take that path, he will find the blessings that sustained America and made it great. If he joins the global crowd, he will drag America down to the level of a world, born yesterday, unstable and searching, where there are no values, only freedoms to follow the elitists. This will drag America down, destroy its power and honor, and ultimately deny it the right to defend itself, precisely what Bush is doing to Israel for the sake of globalism and money.

 

HOME