Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

When I was growing up, the United Nations and its agencies were actively involved in peacekeeping in various trouble spots in the world, and the organisation had a great reputation.  It is painful to see the vehicle to promote peaceful co-existence, being manipulated to promote an agenda other than peace.

One of the UN’s agencies is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is not a Court in the normal sense, and in many of its deliberations, it has failed to provide a platform for justice.

On Friday, 19 July, the Court issued an Advisory Opinion critical of Israel, and without any mention of the ongoing war situation, or that the Israel-Palestine conflict already has legally binding acceptance by both parties in the Oslo Accords for a negotiated settlement of their differences.

Biased Opinion

The Advisory Opinion stated in part, that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.

It said other nations were obliged not to “render aid or assistance in maintaining” Israel’s presence in the territory. It said Israel must end settlement construction immediately and existing settlements must be removed, according to a summary of the more than 80-page opinion read out by Salam.

The court has presumed Israel has no rights to Judea and Samaria, and instead assumes the Palestinians have a right to self-determination that denies any Israeli presence, even though there is an agreement between the PLO and Israel about joint governance of Judea and Samaria.

The Advisory Opinion is not legally binding; it is simply the opinion of some international lawyers who sit in the court. The Court has no means of enforcing its ruling, but rather is being used as an instrument of propaganda and lawfare.

As the Court was asked for its legal opinion based on biased and prejudiced questions, its response was also prejudiced and highly critical of Israel. It did not put the questions into historical context or take into consideration the acts of aggression on different fronts that Israel is facing on a daily basis. In fact, the anti-Israel terror was barely mentioned in their ruling.

When a Court is Not a Court

Normally, a court will examine evidence to arrive at the truth and dispense justice.

It is deeply concerning that the learned judges on the ICJ have sullied their reputations once again by making a biased and discriminatory Advisory Opinion on Israel.

In its own mandate, the International Court of Justice declares its advisory opinion is to:

“carry great legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and have peace-keeping virtues. Advisory opinions also, in their way, contribute to the elucidation and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States.”

While the court is being used as an instrument of Lawfare to change the narrative about Israel, it is not ‘an instrument of preventive diplomacy, with peace-keeping virtues.”  How can it have ‘moral authority’ when the premises of its pronouncements are untrue. It is clearly not strengthening relations between States, rather it is exacerbating the already volatile situation.

When the UN General Assembly wants to influence a situation, it may request the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion. In doing so it frames its question in such a way the court knows what answer the General Assembly wants. The General Assembly is almost unanimously against Israel and has given disproportionate attention to criticise, malign and discredit Israel for many years.

We might ask, where is the ruling on terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, which daily attack Israel, and Iran-sponsored Hamas, which murders, rapes and kidnaps?  Where is the examination of the evidence that Israel is constantly under attack, and is therefore bound to defend its citizens from these attacks?

While there are competing claims about who has territorial rights in certain areas, the fact is the PLO, Hamas, Iran and its other proxies, all openly claim all of Israel as their territory. If the terrorists stopped terrorising Israel, maybe a way could be found to co-exist. But it is difficult to negotiate peace when one side has a singular aim, the elimination of the other.

The Legal Status of the Disputed Territories

Although the ICJ continues to use the term “Occupied Palestinian Territories”,  in legal terms, this is a misnomer.

The Oslo Accords constitute the sole valid source of legal authority for the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. They are the only authoritative legal source of authority for the very existence of the Palestinian autonomous body established by agreement between the PLO and Israel to implement the Accords in the areas under Palestinian control – the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Since Israel’s presence in the territories was agreed to by the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, they are stopped from making any claim that the territories are occupied. By the same token, since the permanent status of the territories is an agreed negotiating item between the parties pursuant to the Accords and pending the outcome of such negotiation, the Palestinians are estopped from claiming that the territories are Palestinian territory.

Such attempts fundamentally and directly contradict the Palestinian obligations and commitments pursuant to the Oslo Accords.

The Biased President of the ICJ

The President of the court is a former diplomat from Lebanon who has expressed quite extreme views against Israel and the Jewish people. In his additional notes to the Opinion, he writes:

The declaration also examines Israel’s discriminatory laws and measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, demonstrating that they are tantamount to the crime of apartheid. Israel has committed numerous inhumane acts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which the Opinion unambiguously identifies, as part of an institutionalized régime of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another.

President Salim does not name these ‘laws and measures’ he considers are ‘tantamount to apartheid’.  Apartheid is a policy founded on the idea of separating people based on racial or ethnic criteria. If there was an apartheid policy in Israel, how do you explain the 21% of the Israeli population who are Arabs living in Israel and enjoying full citizenship?

Israel cannot be blamed for taking strong action against Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinian Authority who continue their policy of ‘Pay for Slay’, paying compensation and rewarding terrorist activities.

The ICJ has failed to take into consideration the violations by the Palestinian Authorities of their obligations under the Oslo Accords, and the PA’s refusal to enter into serious peace negotiations.

The Way of Peace

In Jerusalem, it is wonderful to see how Jews and Arabs work together in harmony on a Friday or Saturday. Friday is the Muslim holy day. All Muslim-run businesses are shut, and Muslims take the day off to worship. On this day, Jews take their shifts. On Saturday, it is the Jews’ time of worship. They take the day off, and the Muslims take their shifts.  Ask any Muslim whether they would rather be living in Iran or Israel, and the answer is clear. In Israel, they have freedom of worship, assembly and all the rights of citizenship.

Instead of trying to dismantle the only democracy in the Middle East, the United Nations should be encouraging a peaceful solution to this complex problem. Rather than using its agencies to promote propaganda and foment disharmony, it should be facilitating moral clarity for real solutions.

In the end, only the Prince of Peace can bring real and lasting peace. Come, Lord Jesus, Come!

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.