Applying a Jewish ethical lens to identify and call out media bias (@NYTimes, again) ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Tuesday, April 08, 2025

Applying a Jewish ethical lens to identify and call out media bias (@NYTimes, again)

My series on antisemitism has evolved into something broader: using Jewish ethics as a baseline for personal and political judgment. Today, I want to apply this lens to a case of subtle media bias - a recent New York Times article on the International Criminal Court.

Leaders Flex Muscles Against International Criminal Court
The leaders of Israel, Hungary and the United States have moved to neutralize the judiciary both at home and abroad.

There are several things going on here, analysts say, which tie together the affinities of Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and President Trump.

Bonding: The International Criminal Court is the most ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect — version of an global judicial system to enforce human rights. Most liberals love it. Mr. Orban, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Trump hate it.

Signaling: Mr. Orban is telling the world that Hungary does what it wants: It may be a member of the European Union, but it is not constrained by it. He’s telling China and Russia that Hungary is open for business. And he’s telling his voters at home that it’s Hungary First all the way.

Testing boundaries: At a moment when global institutions are crumbling and a new order has not yet emerged, no one knows what’s allowed and what’s forbidden anymore.

But Mr. Orban’s defiance of the court is also about something else: a desire to sideline independent judges, both at home and abroad.

“Quite simply, some international institutions have become political bodies,” he told a Hungarian radio program on Friday. “Unfortunately, the International Criminal Court is one of these. It is a political court.”

The power struggles between leaders and judges — whether international or domestic — have become a defining political theme in many countries, including Hungary, Israel, Brazil and the United States.

The article presents a narrative: these three leaders share authoritarian instincts and want to weaken legal checks on their power. The ICC, we’re told, is “ambitious and idealistic — if deeply imperfect.” The reader is left to assume that criticism of the court is just another sign of creeping despotism.

But when we step back and apply a Jewish moral lens, the picture becomes clearer — and the bias more obvious.

Jewish political ethics, which heavily influenced Western philosophy, begin with the idea of covenant (brit). At Sinai, the Israelites voluntarily accepted God’s authority. In return, they became a nation bound by a system of law. That covenantal relationship is the foundation of Jewish nationhood and moral order.

This is the same foundational principle behind Western liberal democracy: the “social contract” described by Rousseau and embedded in the U.S. Constitution. It assumes that power is legitimate only when it emerges from a shared moral agreement between rulers and ruled.

Within that framework, national leaders must be subject to their own legal systems. Jewish ethics demands this, as does the Western tradition it helped inspire. So when leaders attempt to subvert or ignore national courts, it’s morally right to criticize them.

But the International Criminal Court is not grounded in any covenant. It presumes universal jurisdiction - even over nations and individuals who never consented to its authority. This is not law through covenant. This is law through imperium.

The ICC was created through the Rome Statute in 2002. Unlike most international treaties, it explicitly prohibits reservations. Signatories must accept the court’s authority in full or not at all. That’s not a covenant — that’s submission.

Even democratic nations that joined expressed concern. Australia, for example, stated upon ratification, “Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

Spain similarly insisted that any ICC sentence for its citizens must be compatible with Spanish law. These caveats show that even member states were wary of the court’s overreach.

More tellingly, Israel and the United States never joined — and not just under Netanyahu or Trump. Both nations have long been concerned that the ICC could become politicized, would undermine national sovereignty, and lacks the checks and balances that protect fairness in domestic legal systems.

In fact, the Rome Statute includes a war crime category created specifically for Israel, exposing its political nature from the outset and violating the Jewish (and democratic) principle of equal law for all.

The New York Times acknowledges that the ICC is “deeply imperfect,” but then drops it. No elaboration, no context. That small phrase is the only hint that critics of the ICC might have legitimate concerns. But the article doesn’t explore those. Instead, it funnels the entire critique through the lens of autocracy.

This is where the Jewish moral lens becomes essential. It reveals what the article hides: The ICC lacks the covenantal legitimacy Jewish ethics demands. It violates national self-determination - a core moral right.

I cannot read Orban's or Trump's minds. Maybe they really are power-hungry strongmen. But the NYT, by ignoring the deeply problematic nature of the court, doesn't even admit the possibility that they may be defending a deeper ethical principle that justice must be rooted in shared moral commitment, not imposed authority. Without that lens, readers may miss the difference between resisting accountability and resisting illegitimate power.

Jewish ethics doesn’t oppose international law. But it insists that law must emerge from covenant, from mutual responsibility and consent. Without that, “law” becomes just another tool of power. This became clear last year when the ICC rushed to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu while the Gaza war was still ongoing, even though in other cases it has given nations years to demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to prosecute before stepping in.

The ICC lacks covenant. The NYT lacks context. And the moral arguments against both are not partisan, but principled.

Once you put on those Jewish moral glasses, the picture becomes much clearer. And without that framework, it is much easier to be swayed by media bias and propaganda.