WSJ: The International Court of Justice is waging lawfare on Israel
The party with clear genocidal intent here is Hamas, which, because it’s not a state, is conveniently not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Just take a look at the Hamas founding charter, which outlines “our struggle against the Jews.” After the, yes, genocidal Oct. 7 attack, a senior Hamas official declared the terrorist group’s intention to repeat the murderous feat and announced that “Israel is a country that has no place on our land.”Melanie Phillips: Lawyers for blood libels
As to Israel, yes, there are painful and difficult questions about the civilian casualties and suffering it has inflicted in Gaza — casualties that are the result of not only the Hamas attack but also the organization’s cruel and cynical decision to reap benefit from embedding its operations deep in the civilian population and using the ensuing civilian casualties in its war for public support.
But the matter of Israel’s complicity in the suffering is an issue of international humanitarian law entirely separate from the unfounded allegations of genocide. “Israel, its officials and/or agents, have acted with the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza,” South Africa claimed.
No. Israel’s intent — its legitimate intent, under international law — is to defend itself and destroy Hamas. The Genocide Convention requires proof of intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” A country with genocidal intent does not warn the civilian population it is supposedly seeking to destroy to leave an area it plans to bomb. It does not deliver incubators and baby formula to their hospitals.
None of this stopped the International Court of Justice. Responding to another prod from South Africa, it said Israel had to do more to ensure humanitarian aid to civilians — and, alarmingly, seven judges on the 15-member court said they would order Israel to stop the fighting.
To be clear: Israel has erred, badly, on the issue of humanitarian relief, which is a moral and strategic imperative as well as a legal one. The tragic killing of seven aid workers for World Central Kitchen only adds to the understandable pressure on Israel to ease the humanitarian crisis — and to its potential legal exposure on that score. But, and here I need to make a maddeningly legalistic point, the ICJ has jurisdiction to decide only the genocide question. It doesn’t have the authority to determine whether Israel has violated the broader requirements of international humanitarian law.
Add to that the structural imbalance because of the ICJ having no power over Hamas. As Judge Aharon Barak, Israel’s representative on the ICJ, wrote, “The Court has accepted South Africa’s invitation to become the micromanager of an armed conflict,” a “dangerous endeavor” when only one party, Israel, is bound by its decisions.
What’s going on here isn’t law; it’s lawfare, an effort to hijack what should be the somber mechanisms of international justice to the political ends of tarring Israel with the calumny of genocide. South Africa, with close ties to Hamas and its sponsor, Iran, is deploying the Genocide Convention to dirty Israel in the public eye.
Years from now, when the genocide claim is ultimately resolved, it’s not likely Israel will be found to have committed this most terrible of crimes. But that’s not the goal. The goal is in the here and now, to turn public opinion even further against the Jewish state.
The ICJ is enabling it. As Barak put it, the ICJ’s “approach to this case is steadily leaving the land of law and entering the land of politics. The ideas of a judge as a human being should not determine the opinions of a human being when he or she acts as a judge.” The court’s new president, or chief justice, Nawaf Salam, is a former ambassador to the United Nations from Lebanon, where another front could erupt into war at any moment. In 2015, he wrote, “Unhappy birthday to you, 48 years of occupation.” Doesn’t exactly sound impartial.
The 600 British lawyers who have signed a letter to the Prime Minister denouncing Israel for breaking international law and potentially committing genocide deserve nothing but contempt.Gadi Taub: How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth?
Not only have they parroted the falsehoods and distortions with which Israel is being demonised and delegitimised across the world. They have also shockingly misrepresented January’s ruling by the International Court of Justice in the case brought against Israel by South Africa.
The letter, which is signed by 60 KCs and three former Supreme Court judges, says that the ICJ “concluded that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”.
This is a wicked lie. The court said nothing of the kind. Here’s what the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg (in whom I declare an interest) has written on his Substack:
In its third paragraph, the letter says that on 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice “concluded that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”. This error is repeated by the Guardian in its report of the letter. There are several further references in the lawyers’ letter to “the ICJ’s finding of plausible risk”.
The words “plausible risk” appear nowhere in the court’s order. They are a misrepresentation of what the court concluded in paragraph 54 of its judgment:
“In the court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article III [of the Genocide Convention], and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the convention.”
The Palestinian Authority compensates the families of terrorists in proportion to the amount of harm they inflict on Jews. Killing Jews is not just a religious calling that can grant you the status of "martyr" and guarantee you a place in heaven with 72 virgins. It is also a way to make a living. If you're sentenced to 10 years, you make four times the minimum wage and twice the average wage in the PA. The PA spends 7% of its budget on the pay-for-slay scheme.Bret Stephens: The Appalling Tactics of the "Free Palestine" Movement
This program is just one thread in the whole fabric of Palestinian national culture that has woven the idea of jihad against the Jews into all aspects of life. Terrorists dominate the gallery of national heroes. They are essentially the only role model for Palestinian youth. Regardless of how much well-meaning Israelis tried desperately to imagine otherwise over the years, the Palestinian national ethos is built around a genocidal war to ethnically cleanse Palestine, from the river to the sea, of Jewish presence.
Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch, said Oct. 7 was not the result of Hamas indoctrination, but the product of PA indoctrination, which has been around for three decades. Both in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children are still being instructed in books produced by the PA that ceaselessly pump into young minds the poison of the death cult - of suicide and genocide.
Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs concurs that PA indoctrination is a greater source than Hamas of this genocidal hate. The idea that the way forward in Gaza is for Hamas to be replaced by the PA is therefore a risible exercise in wishful thinking, since the PA, in reality, glorifies and incentivizes terrorism.
By now, we know that PA security forces personnel are directly involved in terror attacks. The police forces Israel armed and the U.S. military trains are active participants in the terror they were supposed to stop. Using the guns we gave them to stop terror, they instead kill Jews - in the process securing the livelihoods of their families.
Protest movements have an honorable place in American history. But not all of them. Not the neo-Nazis who marched in Chicago in 1978. Not the white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. And not too much of what passes for a pro-Palestinian movement but is really pro-Hamas, with its open celebration of the murder of Israel's people and its efforts to mock, minimize or deny the suffering of Israelis, which so quickly descend into antisemitism.
It wasn't a response to the human suffering in Gaza. Pro-Hamas demonstrations broke out worldwide on Oct. 8, before any Israeli response. Nor is it a matter of seeking a Palestinian state. Among the popular chants at many protests is "We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!" - all of what had been Mandatory Palestine. In other words, the central, animating sentiment behind much of the protest movement is neither humanitarian nor liberationist. It's eliminationist.
Tactics like the routine removal or defacement of posters of Israelis kidnapped to Gaza; or holding a loud and aggressive demonstration outside of New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer hospital; or shouting down Rep. Jamie Raskin at the University of Maryland for being "complicit in genocide" reveals the bullying mentality at the heart of the pro-Hamas movement.
It isn't enough for them to speak out; they must shut other voices down. They aim to instill a palpable sense of fear in their opponents. American civil libertarians once understood that inherent in the right to protest was the obligation to respect the right of people with differing views to protest as well.