An insight into the minds and prejudices of the judges can quickly be gained by looking at paragraphs 53 and 60 of the opinion. Here is paragraph 53, in full:
53. On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence with reference to the General Assembly resolution 181 (II); an armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States, and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.
Here is paragraph 60, in full:
60. In October 1973, another armed conflict broke out between Egypt, Syria and Israel.
One could write tomes about the two words “broke out,” a careful circumlocution that allows the Court to avoid reference to Arab aggression. “A number of Arab states” did not attack Israel in 1948 to snuff out the Jewish state as soon as it was born, and Egypt and Syria did not attack Israel in 1973. Nope. Conflict just “broke out,” much the way wildfires or thunderstorms can begin. Thus we see the goal of this opinion: to assault Israel, not to do justice.
Paragraphs 267-270 are meatier (though not more significant in displaying the bias of the judges). This section of the opinion is called “Legal consequences for Israel” of the Court’s finding that Israeli “settlement” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is contrary to international law.
Here are excerpts from those paragraphs:
267. With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been
brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.
268. The Court further observes that, with respect to the policies and practices of Israel…which were found to be unlawful, Israel has an obligation to put an end to those unlawful acts. In this respect, Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity.
269. Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 198, para. 152).
270. Restitution includes….the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.
Then the Court adds paragraph 278, from which I take this excerpt:
278. The Court considers that the duty of distinguishing dealings with Israel between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory encompasses, inter alia, the obligation to abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part thereof on matters concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or a part of its territory; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory; to abstain, in the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic missions in Israel, from any recognition of its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory….
One could, again, write books about all of this but I will confine myself to a few salient points.
Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel and the center of Jewish religious devotion for thousands of years. When the Court refers to East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is saying that unlike any other country Israel has no right to “settle” in its own capital, Jews have no right to live in many parts of it, and they must leave. Israel must “bring an end to its presence” there. Israelis living in East Jerusalem must leave “as rapidly as possible.” In this context it’s worth remembering the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which includes “the targeting of the state of Israel” by for example “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” By this definition, this advisory opinion qualifies as antisemitic.
While the Court sits in the Hague, it apparently lives on the moon. Take for example the “wall,” which is actually a barrier between Israel and the West Bank that is for 90 percent of its length a fence, not a wall. The Court’s exclusive use of the term “wall” to describe the barrier is yet another sign of its prejudices. The barrier was built after the Second Intifada for one reason: to staunch the vicious terrorist attacks on Israelis from the West Bank, attacks that had killed more than 1,000 Israelis. The Court’s previous and continuing refusal to acknowledge that Israelis have a right to life, and to defend themselves against murderers, is especially repellent in the aftermath of the massacres of October 7th. The Court in paragraph 270 “requires the…dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It expresses no concern whatsoever about the potential for new terrorist attacks if the “wall” is removed. Jewish life is of no apparent concern.
“All new settlement activity” must cease immediately, the Court says. This presumably means that if you own a home in the West Bank and are having a new baby, and wish to turn your garage into a new bedroom, you are violating international law. Paragraph 270 requires “the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements” without expressing the slightest concern as to where the Israelis and their families might thereafter live. For the judges those are apparently details that do not concern them.
It’s worth noting that the Court’s desire to protect Palestinians is not—of course—matched by concern about Muslims in Xinjiang or Buddhists in Tibet. The Chinese regime need not stop its genocidal activities in either place, nor must Han Chinese shipped into Tibet leave there. Only the Jews are excoriated this way in the “International Court of Justice.” Moreover, the Court refers in paragraph 283 to the “right to an independent and sovereign State” of the Palestinian people. Do Tibetans not have that right? The people of Xinjiang? Berbers? Basques? Catalans? Where does that right start and end? Apparently, it starts and ends when it can be asserted against the Jewish state.
The Court is very concerned about “reparations” and “restitution” to Palestinians. Think for one moment about the settlements built in the West Bank, in very many cases on state land and barren land. What becomes of them? Do they then belong to the Palestinian Authority? Recall what happened to the greenhouses Israelis had built in Gaza, and abandoned when they left Gaza in 2005. The greenhouses were instantly overrun by mobs, looted, and trashed. That’s the most likely fate for the homes built by Israel over the last 45 years in the West Bank if the Israelis are ever forced out—unless the homes are seized by squatters in a display of the law of the jungle. The strongest get the best homes—or perhaps the highest-ranking officials of the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah Party get them. None of these matters of course matter to the “International Court of Justice.”
The hostility toward Israel, the sheer malice, the desire to do harm, is clearly visible in paragraph 278, where nations are urged not to have embassies in Jerusalem and not to allow trade in items from the West Bank. The Israeli Ministry of Justice is at 29 Salah a-Din Street in East Jerusalem, near the American Colony Hotel. The Court is, it seems, stating that diplomats may not visit there. This is a throwback to 1948, when American and other diplomats were forbidden from visiting the foreign ministry in Jerusalem. The Court here is engaging in a great effort to delegitimize the State of Israel.
One final point, about the Court’s paragraph 283. Here it is in full:
283. The Court also considers that the realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State, living side by side in peace with the State of Israel within secure and recognized borders for both States, as envisaged in resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, would contribute to regional stability and the security of all States in the Middle East.
What is so striking is that this entirely political judgment comes in what is supposed to be a legal document. Perhaps you believe that creating an “independent and sovereign” Palestinian state will “contribute to regional stability” and to Israeli security. I do not, for all the reasons I explained in “The Two-State Delusion.” I think it will greatly endanger Israel and “regional stability,” and will be another launching pad for Iranian aggression. That’s my political judgment; the contrary is the political judgment of the judges of the International Court of Justice, and it should have no place whatsoever in what purports to be a legal opinion.
The politics and prejudices of the judges permeate this ICJ action, and render it illegitimate. The State of Israel and the United States should pay it no heed.
