The ICJ and Gaza, the moral fall of the Court and of the West
The order of the International Court of Justice relating to provisional measures taken against the State of Israel at the request of South Africa in the context of the conflict in Gaza in response to the surprise attack of the Hamas terrorist organization of October 7, highlights the moral degradation of the West and international organizations.
Israel’s response to the deliberate massacre of hundreds of Israeli civilian citizens, attacked in their homes in the early hours of the morning and victims of incredible atrocities against men, women, children and the elderly, the systematic rape of women and young girls, the mutilation and the removal of the genitals of men and women and the heads of babies, their cooking alive in the oven, the desecration of corpses, the trapping and murder of hundreds of adolescents during a music festival , the violent kidnapping of hundreds of people, including young children who have not been heard from, is legitimate and measured. It has nothing to do with the commission of an alleged “genocide”.
Faced, moreover, with the continued bombardment to this day, and for years, of the territory of Israel by thousands of missiles loaded with explosives, this response is carried out in scrupulous respect for international law and especially humanitarian law. well beyond the legal obligations of the State of Israel which goes so far as to take care to warn non-combatants by email and mobile phone before the attack on enemy military objectives deliberately hidden behind schools, mosques and hospitals in violation of all rules of law.
The government of Israel has clearly outlined the objectives of the response, which are to liquidate any military capabilities of the Hamas terrorist organization and render it incapable of governing the population of Gaza or any other population. There are actions whose consequences are irremediable. Pretending that there is a desire to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs is a fraudulent maneuver. All wars generate suffering, but nothing will ever justify adding savagery to it.
The order of January 26, 2024 of the Court of The Hague probably definitively ruins the credibility of the International Court of Justice acquired by the effort of generations of eminent and honest jurists. Indeed, the conclusions of this text testify to partiality, manipulation of words and legal concepts, a tearful sensitivity in favor of Hamas and an almost absolute indifference with regard to the situation of the Jewish State victim of a characterized aggression.
Above all, it testifies to blatant insensitivity, apart from a few pious wishes without any legal effect, towards the hostages held incommunicado in the underground jails of Hamas, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the southern and northern border areas, cloistered for months in hotels, and continuous attacks on the entire territory, with missiles and drones coming from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen which continue every day, a situation generating lasting troubles caused to millions of the children of Israel by this destructive encirclement.
But in addition, the order completely ignores the regular declarations of Hamas leaders promising dozens of other similar massacres, until the truly genocidal eradication of Israel and Jews around the world.
Under these conditions, the simple fact that the Court was able to consider as appropriate and serious the accusation by South Africa according to which the State of Israel would carry out acts which were closely or remotely in connection to the crime of genocide to the point of not immediately rejecting it « in limine litis », constitutes, in itself, complicity in a manipulation of pure propaganda, of limitless audacity, which also deserves to be elucidated. But that is not all. To understand how 14 of the 15 permanent magistrates of this institution were able to get to this point, we need to ask some serious questions.
An eminent jurist, Dr. Michel Calvo, highlights an essential point in an article (1): “ The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“the Declaration”), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007, by a majority of 144 States in favor, 4 which voted against and 11 which abstained (A/RES/61/295), recognized that indigenous peoples have the right to lands, territories and resources that they traditionally own and occupy or have used or acquired (Art. 26.1) and that they have the right not to be subject, in the exercise of their rights, to any form of discrimination (Art. .2).
According to international law, Jews are the indigenous people, also known as the first people, indigenous people, or native people of the land called Judea and Samaria, Palestine or the Holy Land, and therefore meet the criteria required by international law. The Jews are the people who were the people of Judea and Samaria 3,500 years ago when the Land was granted to the Jews by the Almighty. World leaders, who have chosen to ignore history, misleadingly refer to Judea and Samaria as the « West Bank » or the West Bank of the Jordan River (which includes Israel) or the « Occupied Palestinian Territories. » These territories were liberated in 1967 from illegal Jordanian domination (only England and Pakistan recognized the West Bank as Jordanian territory). Jordan has since given up claiming them. This territory of Palestine has never belonged at any time, in international law to the Arabs, and even less to a so-called “Palestinian” Arab people who would have had ownership of it. »
In terms of Public International Law, there is a consensual reference document that the West and Islam pretend to ignore because it sets the geographical extent of the recognition by Nations of the eternal rights of the Jewish People over their land. After the First World War, on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, under the auspices of the League of Nations which preceded the UN and whose decisions legally bind it, in 1920 and 1923, a division of territories was established of the Middle East. After the Balfour Declaration (1917), the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the British Mandate (1922), the San Remo Resolution (1920) and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) created international law, recognized and restored the rights Historical indigenous Jews to their Land. The signatories of these treaties and the Mandate (Great Britain, France, Turkey, Japan, Italy, etc.), are contractually bound to these agreements.
Neither in fact nor in law, has there ever existed an Arab State of Palestine nor a “Palestinian territory”, anywhere other than Eastern Palestine illegally taken from the People of Israel. However, by the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994, Israel explicitly renounced claims to its territory, but not that located west of the Jordan.
There is collusion between the West and a certain Arab East to claim that Jews should give up a significant part of their historic homeland in favor of a third Palestinian state in addition to Jordan and Israel. The intention is clear: to leave the Jews only a scrap of territory which will always be under the threat of a surprise attack which will make it disappear. The concept of Israel as a historical parenthesis, so often mentioned in Europe in the last decade, is not accidental and is part of the perversions constituting the relationships of these two civilizations to the People of Israel which cannot be developed here.
The Gaza region populated by nearly two million Muslim Arabs, completely emptied of its Jewish population in 2005 under controversial conditions, which implied for Israel a risky bet on the hope that the absence of a Jewish population and a total autonomy of the Arabs of Gaza could gradually develop peaceful relations. So Gaza had until October 7, 2023, total autonomy and a passage to Egypt.
Unfortunately, all of Israel’s hopes for stabilization proved in vain and the Hamas terrorist organization having taken control of the region in 2006, it quickly devoted significant resources to preparing a war of conquest against Israel, also engaging in incessant attacks on the Israeli civilian population. Its charter continues to this day to advocate the demise of Israel and the genocide of its people.
The Gaza region was, until October 7, ruled by Hamas, which imposed a regime of violence, the teaching of hatred and glaring inequalities on the local population. Its economy, based exclusively on foreign aid, was incapable of leading to real progress. Gaza produced almost nothing other than weapons. Hamas has regularly engaged for years, and still does, in increasingly deadly missile attacks against the civilian population of Israel. He shamelessly diverts the humanitarian aid generously provided by the West for the purchase of weapons and the comfort of his “Nomenklatura”. Israel has regularly found itself forced to respond to attacks against its territory with a series of operations, to put an end to them at least for a time.
The future status of this region remains undecided. After the recent attack, and the ongoing operations, new strategic considerations are required on the type of regime admissible in Gaza and under what modalities.
In all cases recorded to date by application of the agreement on prevention of genocide, written in 1946 by an American Jew in relation to the massacre of European Jews by the nazis and collaborators, the existence of a real “dispute” is required between the parties who appear before the Court. When we speak of “genocide”, at the very least, we are talking about deliberate massacres, accompanied by the desire to wipe out all or part of a national, ethnic or religious group. However, South Africa has nothing to do with the deadly surprise attack by Hamas against hundreds of peaceful Israeli citizens, nor with the essential and legitimate response of the victim State.
By a crude artifice, South Africa claims to position itself as a party to this “dispute” because it has, from the start of Israel’s response, publicly mentioned it, then sent one or two verbal notes to the Embassy of Israel on its territory, articulating the absurd association of the term genocide with the most legitimate national defense in the face of savage aggression.
This attempt by the South African state was clearly aimed at a propaganda operation to help Hamas. However, the Court, not without contortions undermining the terms of Article IX of the Convention itself, accepts the perverted argument of this State steeped in racialist ideology as expressed for several years at the Durban rallies.
Once the war is over, there will remain a dramatic attack on the credibility of the International Court of Justice for having lent itself to this simulacrum of justice. The Jewish People in the State of Israel and in the Diaspora, for their part, will have understood very well that, in their solitude, they must rely first on themselves and follow the categorical moral imperatives taught by their biblical tradition, far from adulterated pseudo-moralities.
Even those in Israel, detached from their tradition, believed themselves to be at the progressive edge of the West-Esav, discover with amazement that the connivance of a depraved form of humanism with Islamic totalitarianism can lead to the worst collaboration with savagery and evil.
Leon Rozenbaum
Lawyer in Jerusalem, French-trained jurist.
Laisser un commentaire