The State of Israel has a series of solid legal arguments for its territorial claims to Judea and Samaria, but the Court’s officials are not interested in a discussion, only in Israel’s defeat in its fight against murderous terrorism.
The wall-to-wall Israeli opposition to the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of “Justice” is reflected in the responses from the heads of both opposition and coalition, demonstrating the very rare consensus regarding the injustice and bias coming out of the Hague. Again and again the Court has chosen to take the terrorists’ side and prevent Israel from promoting its legitimate interests and protecting its citizens.
When the Lebanese President of the Court reads out the anti-Israel opinion while rockets are being fired from his country, very few Israelis see legal procedeedings and not a disguised extension of the armed fight against Israel. When the opinion claims “illegal occupation,” despite the fact that the territory in question was explicitly designated for the Jewish state in the League of Nations mandate and was never held by any entity legally recognized by international law which could claim it was conquered from, while also claiming “illegal occupation” in reference to legally annexed lands in Jerusalem, The Temple Mount and the Kotel (Western Wall), and claiming continued occupation of the Gaza Strip even after the 2005 disengagement – there is not a shred of legal discussion to be had.
International law was devised under a vision of human rights, designing laws of war that would prevent unnecessary acts of cruelty and harm to prisoners of war, while establishing ways to peacefully settle disputes between states. However, the double standards systematically employed against Israel, in addition to the Court’s biased judgments, are instructive of the fact that the reality on the ground doesn’t align with the vision, and the institutions that act in the name of international law do so in vain.
The issue is not necessarily one of law but of a biased man of law. The State of Israel has a series of solid legal arguments for its territorial claims to Judea and Samaria beyond the deep historical connection between the people and their ancestral land, as established by the Edmund Levy report – but the discussion is neither legalistic nor impartial. Court officials are not trying to hold a hearing, but to defeat Israel in its struggle against the murderous terrorism employed by Palestinians since before the Six Day War and the liberation of Judea and Samaria. They take issue with the borders of 1948 and see us as occupiers and settlers also in Metula, Jaffa, Akko, Lod and Be’eri. The PA, which initiated the petition to the Court, promotes the proceedings in the Hague, while also promoting incitement to violence in its educational curricula and funding terrorism and murderers. In the theater of the absurd that is the international “Court”, the President is someone well known for his anti-Israel statements, turning the Court into a cudgel that incentivizes terrorism rather than a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes.
When the Houthis shut down international shipping routes – the governance of which was the initial raison d’etre for international law – the Court was silent. When Hamas invaded the Gaza Envelope murdering civilians, raping, pillaging and dragging hundreds of hostages back to Gaza to conduct warfare from within civilian centers, hospitals and schools, the international organizations did not demand the humane treatment of the hostages and put pressure on Palestinian parties, but rather busied themselves with no less than accusing Israel of genocide and war crimes. While rocket fire from Lebanon forces the evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians from their homes, Israel is undergoing international pressure via the biased Lebanese president of the Court. This isn’t a search for justice but a continuation of the international struggle in the attempt to delegitimize Israel and increase the pressure that it submit to its enemies.
The denouncement across the political divide from Netanyahu, Lapid, Lieberman, Gantz, Sa’ar and Smotrich demonstrates that so long as the international tribunals persist in acting in a biased manner, the State of Israel has no choice but to ignore the conclusions they promote and refuse to cooperate. There is no chance of neutral judicial proceedings in the biased political institutions in the Hague.
Twenty years ago, after the Court’s decision regarding the legality of the “wall” [the fence erected as a security barrier], Israel ignored the advisory opinion, and the security fence has since served as an important component in Israel’s defense of its citizens. Today as well, Israel must ignore the Court and work to strengthen international legitimacy to readjusting international law to the fight against terrorism and the axis of evil. We are not alone in this fight, and many recognize the injustice when it is so blatant. We should enlist such allies to terminate their cooperation with biased institutions.
The condemnations from both opposition and coalition are instructive of the opportunity such a one-sided advisory opinion offers. We have an opportunity to bring together an international coalition that grants Israel the legitimacy to act against its enemies – and more importantly, to restore international law to its original purpose.
First published in Makor Rishon [Hebrew]
