[This is the second post in my series on my mission to Israel. Part 1 is here.]
I have always been skeptical of international law, viewing it as a tool for progressive lawyers to push their agendas under the guise of legal authority. My recent mission to Israel only solidified this view.
During my time in Israel, I had the opportunity to meet with various legal experts, including former Attorney General and military lawyers. They provided insights into how international law operates in relation to Israel. Through these discussions, I concluded that international law is often used as a weapon to punish Israel and the United States.
One example that resonates with American readers is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals for war crimes. The ICC’s jurisdiction allows it to prosecute individuals when their home justice system is unable or unwilling to do so. This independent institution can bring powerful figures to justice without political considerations. This was evident when the ICC prosecutor applied for warrants against leaders in Gaza and Hamas, as well as Israeli officials, following an incident in October 2023.
Another legal battleground for Israel is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where cases between nation states are heard. Israel is currently facing allegations of genocide and starvation in Gaza, as well as disputes over territory on the West Bank. These cases are heavily influenced by political agendas, with countries like South Africa and Iran backing certain claims against Israel.
Overall, my experience in Israel shed light on the manipulative nature of international law, where institutions are used as tools to target specific countries and advance political motives. The exploitation of legal systems for strategic gain is a concerning trend that undermines the credibility and fairness of international law.
The Palestinians are seeking to have it both ways. To any impartial observer, the situation is nonsensical. In the Hague, Netanyahu is deemed a war criminal while Hamas is treated as just another party in a lawsuit. Only in a progressive dream court can Iran bribe South Africa to prosecute Israel for allegedly starving the Palestinian people during a war, despite significant efforts to provide humanitarian aid and warn civilians of impending strikes. Nicaragua, a rogue state, is also taking action against Germany and other western nations to prevent them from supporting Israel, which they label as “genocidal.” It seems like everyone wants to join this party.
South Africa has requested what are essentially preliminary injunctions called “provisional measures.” The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could potentially grant a global temporary restraining order against Israel, effectively halting its military actions in Gaza. The standard for granting such relief is surprisingly low, only requiring a plausible claim rather than a likelihood of success on the merits. This differs greatly from the American legal system. The game seems rigged in favor of certain parties.
While the ICJ has rejected multiple requests for Israel to cease its military operations, it has demanded increased humanitarian aid. There is a concern that the ICJ may eventually attempt to impose restrictions on hostilities. The court’s rulings, while not technically binding, can influence international opinion and potentially isolate Israel on the global stage.
The potential ICJ ruling on the West Bank occupation could have significant consequences. It may declare parts of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as illegal, further complicating the longstanding territorial dispute. This could set a dangerous precedent for future international actions against Israel and potentially the United States.
The current legal battle against Israel illustrates a concerning trend of using lawfare in international tribunals to undermine sovereign nations. The focus appears to be on targeting Israel, while other countries with egregious human rights violations go unchecked. It is troubling to see Israeli lawyers continuing to engage in a process that seems stacked against their country. In a way, lawyers who are deeply rooted in this tradition must have faith in it. If not, their entire career would be meaningless. As an outsider, I attempt to view this madness objectively. However, every time I attend a presentation, I find myself throwing my hands up in frustration. I can’t help but ask repeatedly: what is the purpose of all this?
Source link
