Two recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings prove how biased this United Nations judicial body located in The Hague is against the Jewish state of Israel.The first is a May 4, 2024, ruling instigated by the government of South Africa that the Israel Defence Forces must halt all operations in Rafah in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli response to the genocidal Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023. The ICJ voted that “Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” This decision was supported by 13 of the 15 judges.In response to that ruling, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, “The irrelevant order of the antisemitic court in The Hague should have only one answer: the occupation of Rafah, the increase of military pressure and the complete destruction of Hamas — until the complete victory in the war is achieved.”Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “Hamas is holding 125 hostages, presumably many in Rafah. The ICJ has just told Israel it’s not allowed to try to save them and must relinquish military leverage. This is not justice. This is a travesty of justice.”Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, added to this by saying, “That Jews are treated differently is not a new story but a more than 2,000-year-old story that is based on ancient hatred. Every year, the Human Rights Council passes more resolutions against Israel than all the other countries in the world combined.” Dr. Charles Asher Small, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), issued the following statement in response to the ICJ ruling: “The ICJ’s ruling is a stark reminder of how South Africa, which has become a hub for extremist activities across the African continent, continues to embrace antisemitic ideologies and support state-sponsored terror.”Small continued to say, “Maintaining close ties with and acting on behalf of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, South Africa has become a leading voice for terror. By bringing this case against Israel and in favour of Hamas, South Africa further positions itself as a bad actor on the global stage. The time has come for the international community to recognize and address South Africa’s alarming connections with terror-supporting states and entities.”The second ruling is even more questionable.In an unambiguous decision, the IJC declared in a non-binding ruling on Friday, July 19, that Israel’s 56-year-long rule in “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” is “illegal” and that it is obligated to bring its presence in that territory to an end “as rapidly as possible.”In its decision, the ICJ said it determined Israel’s policy of settlement in the West Bank violates international law and that Israel had effectively annexed large parts of the West Bank — along with East Jerusalem, which was formally annexed in 1980 — due to some of the seemingly permanent aspects of Israeli rule there.The legal consequences of its findings, the court ruled, were that Israel must end its control of these areas, cease new settlement activity, “repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation” — including those which it said “discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” — and provide reparations for any damage caused by its “wrongful acts.”In addition, the court said that all U.N. member states are obligated to ensure that any impediment “to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end.”The ICJ’s decisions are only advisory opinions; they have no direct legal consequences on Israel or other U.N. member states. Still, they cannot be easily ignored because this could be a further blow to the Jewish state’s international standing and add political pressure over its nine-month-old war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, part of Biblical Israel. Israel did not take part in these hearings. Instead, it submitted a written brief describing the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious.”Israel could also now argue that the ICJ’s extraordinarily narrow and biased legal opinions lack historical or contemporary context.For example, there was never an independent Palestinian nation-state or even a distinct Palestinian people before the recognition of the sovereign State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948. Between 1948 and 1967, when Egypt governed the Gaza Strip (part of biblical Israel) and Jordan controlled the West Bank, there was no cry about the foreign occupation of Palestinian lands.Between 1917, when the British conquered these lands, and 1948, they formed part of the Mandate for Palestine. Earlier still, from 1517 to 1917, these two territories were part of the Ottoman Empire. Even earlier, these lands were part of the Muslim annexation of the Levant in the seventh century after hundreds of years of Roman rule following the exile of its Indigenous Jewish inhabitants in the first century A.D. This expulsion was of indigenous people who had ruled over their own sovereign states for the preceding 2,000 years.In 131 AD, Emperor Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina and constructed the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the site of the former Jewish temple. Jews were banned from Jerusalem, and Roman Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina, derived from “Palestine” in English and “Filistin” in Arabic.In short, there is no “Palestine territory occupied since 1967” because there has never been a distinct Palestinian people with a unique language or culture who were displaced from lands they had sovereignty over, whether as an independent state or other political entity.None of this history or the lack of legitimacy of a people who only spuriously see themselves as Palestinians in opposition to the Jewish State of Israel has ever been recognized by the ICJ.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, numerous cabinet ministers as well as settler leaders roundly denounced the latest ruling, with some calling for the immediate formal annexation of the West Bank in response.“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land — not in our eternal capital, Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu said, using the biblical names for the West Bank. “No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth, just as the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested.”Equally unconscionable was the issue of this ruling during the middle of an existential battle between Israel and its Palestinian mortal enemies, most of whom strongly support the genocidal Hamas terrorists who are their political leaders.This ruling is clearly a victory for Hamas.More particularly, as one keen Israeli observer has argued, “The ICJ also seems to have a selective memory regarding security concerns. Israeli settlements act as crucial buffers against the kind of aggressions that tend to happen when your neighbors aren’t exactly sending you fruit baskets. Judea and Samaria have been a breeding ground for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Suggesting that Israel dismantle these settlements without any security guarantees is like telling someone to take off their bulletproof vest in the middle of a shootout. Do you believe Israel should compromise its security for a romantic fantasy [the creation out of whole cloth of a Palestinian state]?”The ICJ is not only facing severe criticism for these and other highly selective rulings but also for the well-documented anti-Israel bias of the court’s president.“Put simply, the U.N.’s highest legal body is a political tool of global antisemitism. The presiding judge in this case was ICJ President Nawaf Salam. He is from Lebanon, a country that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. And in his spare time, he has tweeted such things as a meme that reads ‘unhappy birthday to you: 48 years of occupation.’ He is a politician — a rabid anti-Israel politician — dressed up by the U.N. as a judge,” Anne Bayefsky, the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, told Fox News Digital.There has never been justice for Israel at the biased International Court of Justice.Hymie Rubenstein is editor of REAL Indigenous Report, a retired professor of anthropology, and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Two recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings prove how biased this United Nations judicial body located in The Hague is against the Jewish state of Israel.The first is a May 4, 2024, ruling instigated by the government of South Africa that the Israel Defence Forces must halt all operations in Rafah in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli response to the genocidal Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023. The ICJ voted that “Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” This decision was supported by 13 of the 15 judges.In response to that ruling, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, “The irrelevant order of the antisemitic court in The Hague should have only one answer: the occupation of Rafah, the increase of military pressure and the complete destruction of Hamas — until the complete victory in the war is achieved.”Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “Hamas is holding 125 hostages, presumably many in Rafah. The ICJ has just told Israel it’s not allowed to try to save them and must relinquish military leverage. This is not justice. This is a travesty of justice.”Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, added to this by saying, “That Jews are treated differently is not a new story but a more than 2,000-year-old story that is based on ancient hatred. Every year, the Human Rights Council passes more resolutions against Israel than all the other countries in the world combined.” Dr. Charles Asher Small, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), issued the following statement in response to the ICJ ruling: “The ICJ’s ruling is a stark reminder of how South Africa, which has become a hub for extremist activities across the African continent, continues to embrace antisemitic ideologies and support state-sponsored terror.”Small continued to say, “Maintaining close ties with and acting on behalf of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, South Africa has become a leading voice for terror. By bringing this case against Israel and in favour of Hamas, South Africa further positions itself as a bad actor on the global stage. The time has come for the international community to recognize and address South Africa’s alarming connections with terror-supporting states and entities.”The second ruling is even more questionable.In an unambiguous decision, the IJC declared in a non-binding ruling on Friday, July 19, that Israel’s 56-year-long rule in “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” is “illegal” and that it is obligated to bring its presence in that territory to an end “as rapidly as possible.”In its decision, the ICJ said it determined Israel’s policy of settlement in the West Bank violates international law and that Israel had effectively annexed large parts of the West Bank — along with East Jerusalem, which was formally annexed in 1980 — due to some of the seemingly permanent aspects of Israeli rule there.The legal consequences of its findings, the court ruled, were that Israel must end its control of these areas, cease new settlement activity, “repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation” — including those which it said “discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” — and provide reparations for any damage caused by its “wrongful acts.”In addition, the court said that all U.N. member states are obligated to ensure that any impediment “to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end.”The ICJ’s decisions are only advisory opinions; they have no direct legal consequences on Israel or other U.N. member states. Still, they cannot be easily ignored because this could be a further blow to the Jewish state’s international standing and add political pressure over its nine-month-old war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, part of Biblical Israel. Israel did not take part in these hearings. Instead, it submitted a written brief describing the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious.”Israel could also now argue that the ICJ’s extraordinarily narrow and biased legal opinions lack historical or contemporary context.For example, there was never an independent Palestinian nation-state or even a distinct Palestinian people before the recognition of the sovereign State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948. Between 1948 and 1967, when Egypt governed the Gaza Strip (part of biblical Israel) and Jordan controlled the West Bank, there was no cry about the foreign occupation of Palestinian lands.Between 1917, when the British conquered these lands, and 1948, they formed part of the Mandate for Palestine. Earlier still, from 1517 to 1917, these two territories were part of the Ottoman Empire. Even earlier, these lands were part of the Muslim annexation of the Levant in the seventh century after hundreds of years of Roman rule following the exile of its Indigenous Jewish inhabitants in the first century A.D. This expulsion was of indigenous people who had ruled over their own sovereign states for the preceding 2,000 years.In 131 AD, Emperor Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina and constructed the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the site of the former Jewish temple. Jews were banned from Jerusalem, and Roman Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina, derived from “Palestine” in English and “Filistin” in Arabic.In short, there is no “Palestine territory occupied since 1967” because there has never been a distinct Palestinian people with a unique language or culture who were displaced from lands they had sovereignty over, whether as an independent state or other political entity.None of this history or the lack of legitimacy of a people who only spuriously see themselves as Palestinians in opposition to the Jewish State of Israel has ever been recognized by the ICJ.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, numerous cabinet ministers as well as settler leaders roundly denounced the latest ruling, with some calling for the immediate formal annexation of the West Bank in response.“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land — not in our eternal capital, Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu said, using the biblical names for the West Bank. “No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth, just as the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested.”Equally unconscionable was the issue of this ruling during the middle of an existential battle between Israel and its Palestinian mortal enemies, most of whom strongly support the genocidal Hamas terrorists who are their political leaders.This ruling is clearly a victory for Hamas.More particularly, as one keen Israeli observer has argued, “The ICJ also seems to have a selective memory regarding security concerns. Israeli settlements act as crucial buffers against the kind of aggressions that tend to happen when your neighbors aren’t exactly sending you fruit baskets. Judea and Samaria have been a breeding ground for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Suggesting that Israel dismantle these settlements without any security guarantees is like telling someone to take off their bulletproof vest in the middle of a shootout. Do you believe Israel should compromise its security for a romantic fantasy [the creation out of whole cloth of a Palestinian state]?”The ICJ is not only facing severe criticism for these and other highly selective rulings but also for the well-documented anti-Israel bias of the court’s president.“Put simply, the U.N.’s highest legal body is a political tool of global antisemitism. The presiding judge in this case was ICJ President Nawaf Salam. He is from Lebanon, a country that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. And in his spare time, he has tweeted such things as a meme that reads ‘unhappy birthday to you: 48 years of occupation.’ He is a politician — a rabid anti-Israel politician — dressed up by the U.N. as a judge,” Anne Bayefsky, the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, told Fox News Digital.There has never been justice for Israel at the biased International Court of Justice.Hymie Rubenstein is editor of REAL Indigenous Report, a retired professor of anthropology, and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
