Melanie Phillips: Brothers in harms
Whatever was in these judges’ minds, the charges against Israel brought to the ICJ by Hamas’s ally South Africa bore no relation to reality whatsoever and the court should have thrown them out in the first instance as malevolent and vexatious. Whether as an act of celebration or defiance, Hamas reacted yesterday to the ICJ ruling by unleashing a volley of rockets from Rafah towards Tel Aviv and other parts of central Israel with the aim of killing yet more Israeli civilians, an aim thwarted once again only by Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield.Ruthie Blum: No, Israel didn’t ‘pave the way’ for ‘pariah’ status
Those who haven’t been paying attention over the years might well wonder how it can possibly be that Israel is the only country singled out by international bodies as not being entitled to defend itself adequately against exterminatory attack.
The answer, bizarre as this may sound, is that the entire global humanitarian and “human rights” establishment has been fashioned into a weapon of extermination against the one state in the Middle East committed to upholding democracy and human rights.
This is because “human rights” culture is not what it says on the tin.
'‘Human rights” doctrine provides what purports to be the defining creed of the modern world in a promise to perfect humanity. Its values are thus deemed to rise way above laws devised by mere mortals and to enshrine instead supposedly universal values.
But these aren’t universal at all. Most countries don’t subscribe to them; for every “human right” there is a contrary one; and they are adjudicated by courts which bring to bear subjective views about where the balance between competing rights should be struck.
Rights derive from obligations, without which rights are philosophically and intellectually incoherent. Detached from obligations, rights become demands.
Law derives its legitimacy from expressing the boundaries of behaviour agreed by a sovereign nation in accordance with its culture and rooted in the consent of the people channelled through democratically elected parliaments. Universal human rights law is rooted in no such national culture and democratic consent. Radically deracinated from any national jurisdiction, it was always going to turn into an instrument of politics and ideology rather than justice and the protection of the innocent.
As the supposed “conscience” of the world, it has consequently been hijacked by a global community dominated by tyrannies, gangster states and terrorist regimes and turned into their instrument of destruction targeted at Israel, the one nation that stands in the way of the rest by refusing to lie down and die.
The “human rights” culture has now revealed itself to be intellectually and morally corrupt — even as western liberals cling to the fig leaf it provides for the attempt finally to drive Israel and the Jewish people out of the liberal world, its mind and its conscience forever.
Way to go, Jerusalem Post. In the midst of an existential war, you opted to engage in the very kind of Jewish breast-beating that’s music to enemy ears. And, as you know, Hamas and its patrons in Tehran are listening.Ben-Dror Yemini: International courts: a terrorist's last line of defense
But you’ve taken rhetorical acrobatics to new heights. In your Sunday editorial—as its title reveals off the bat—Israel bears responsibility for “becoming a pariah state.” According to your assessment, “While it’s true that the world’s smug, sanctimonious attitude towards a just war that Israel has every right to fight is ludicrous and a disgusting double standard, our leaders made decisions that paved the way.”
If readers were wondering what, in your view, spurred the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor to push for arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Israel must halt its moves in Rafah that will harm civilians, you provided an answer that would have pleased both bodies.
“[W]hen Israel began its military operation, it didn’t do enough to give off the impression that it was concerned with the Palestinian population at large,” you asserted, using the example of “statements by government officials who said that basic needs will be cut off.”
Your failure to specify the “government officials” highlighted in January by the ICJ in its hearings on South Africa’s antisemitic “genocide” case against Israel was probably purposeful. Naming them would have put a damper on your argument, after all.
While you were suggesting that “right-wing extremists” were the culprits, the court’s statement indicates otherwise. Referring to “comments made by senior Israeli politicians that contained inciting and dehumanizing rhetoric,” the ICJ didn’t even mention National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir or Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
No, the kangaroo tribunal pointed the finger at Gallant and President Isaac Herzog—the former for saying “that Israel is ‘fighting against human animals,’” and the latter for claiming “that Palestinians are collectively responsible” for Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, on the grounds that “they could have risen up [and] and fought against that evil regime.”
Given the nature of the massacre on that Black Sabbath nearly eight months ago, with Hamas terrorists committing the worst atrocities against Jews since the Holocaust, the above remarks were not only justified; they were perfectly reasonable. Indeed, the only problem with Gallant’s calling them “human animals” is that actual beasts are instinctual, not sadistic, creatures.
Ironically, these very states and their sponsored entities show a blatant disregard for international tribunals. Instead, they manipulate these courts to accuse those who combat terrorism. The ICJ and ICC, conceived in response to the horrors of World War II and Nazism, now paradoxically serve entities like Hamas—a terrorist organization calling for the annihilation of Jews and embodying modern-day Nazism. Whom do these courts protect? Hamas. Whom do they target? Israel. This is the tragic paradox of international law. A forthcoming report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) highlights a disturbing reality: "South Africa serves as a crucial operational hub for Islamic terrorist groups, facilitating connections with terror networks across Africa... Entities linked to terrorism continue to operate freely within South Africa, evading international oversight." Essentially, South Africa acts as the enforcement arm of oppressive blocs, particularly Iran and Hamas, within the ICJ.
Julius Malema, a prominent South African politician who serves as the president of a group called "Economic Freedom Fighters", openly pledges to bolster support for terrorism and arm Hamas if he gains governmental power (with elections imminent). He also advocates for the murder of white people. Alarmingly, 27,494 murders occurred in South Africa last year alone—surpassing the inflated UN estimates of casualties in Gaza. Yet, this terror-supporting, violence-ridden state exploits the ICJ to wage its campaign against Israel. The ICJ’s recent decision is a significant setback for Israel. It implies that no democratic nation can effectively combat a terrorist organization embedded within and backed by civilian populations. According to the logic of the ICJ judges, Britain committed crimes against Germany, the U.S. against Japan, and similarly in Iraq, Afghanistan and against ISIS. If this reasoning holds, injunctions should have been issued against all these nations.
Historically, before the establishment of the ICJ and ICC, actual war criminals faced trial in special courts, as seen in Nuremberg and Tokyo post-World War II. Today, however, there is no practical mechanism to hold Hamas accountable, even if an international tribunal ruled against them. These criminals could still traverse the oppressive bloc, from Ankara to Doha, Beijing, Johannesburg, and Moscow. What value does international law hold if it cannot punish the perpetrators of terror and oppression but might impede democratic nations from targeting these power centers? This is the essence of the recent rulings by the ICJ and ICC against Israel.
For Israel, the ICJ’s decision is a blow to its global image, particularly when paired with ICC prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants against top-tier Israeli politicians. Although the ICJ’s ruling technically permits continued fighting, global media are broadcasting headlines claiming, "the court issued an injunction against Israel regarding the continuation of the war."
This narrative appears to favor terrorism over justice. Unsurprisingly, Hamas quickly lauded the decision, which serves their interests. An organization dedicated to the destruction of Jews, akin to a modern Nazi entity, benefits from an international tribunal established to combat Nazism and its genocidal agenda. This is not the International Court of Justice; it is the International Court for the Support of Terrorism and Extermination.