On October 7, the world witnessed one of the most brutal attacks in recent memory, when Hamas launched a coordinated assault on Israel, resulting in massacres of unspeakable barbarity on a large scale. Despite these clear human rights violations and acts of terrorism, the highest levels of the international community seem more determined than ever to deny Israel its right to self-defense.
Has the world already forgotten the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the end of the Holocaust? Why is there so little mention of Hamas’ responsibility and demands for the terrorist organization to release the hostages and surrender its weapons from international organizations? There is only one answer: hypocrisy — hypocrisy that highlights a troubling bias on the international stage.
Latest episode to date: Friday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to “immediately stop its military offensive, and any other action carried out in the governorate of Rafah, which would be likely to subdue the group of Palestinians in Gaza to conditions of existence capable of bringing about its total or partial physical destruction”, which makes the order conditional.
However, it must be remembered that in the context of the Israel-Hamas war, the jurisdiction of the Court is with regard to the Genocide Convention only. However, as highlighted in another article, the fact is that this case should never have been brought before the Court. Full of absurdity, hypocrisy and cynicism, South Africa’s accusations are an attempt to politicize the ICJ, and in the process to redefine what genocide is and weaken Israel’s international position. Nor is the role of the Court to micromanage a war.
A few days earlier, on May 20, Karim Khan, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that he was asking it to issue arrest warrants in particular against the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also requested arrest warrants against certain Hamas leaders.
This decision is not only morally scandalous, but also legally erroneous, as well as factually absurd and dangerous for justice and peace on the international scene.
Morally scandalous, because by choosing to indict both Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders, the Court establishes a reprehensible moral equivalence between victim and aggressor, between Israeli leaders, who strive to protect their nation in respect for international humanitarian law, and the leaders of Hamas, who relentlessly pursue a genocidal campaign against the Jewish State. This equivalence is as absurd as indicting Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for their respective roles during World War II and equating their responsibility for civilian casualties.
Legally erroneous, because in accordance with the principle of complementarity, the ICC can only exercise its jurisdiction if national legal systems are unwilling or unable to ensure genuine judicial proceedings. Israel’s systems of judicial review and self-investigation are among the most rigorous in the world, making the ICC’s intervention invalid under its own rules. In his statement, the prosecutor alludes to “sham legal procedures” to justify that the principle of complementarity is respected, according to him.
A factually absurd and dangerous accusation, given that Israel benefits in particular from a Supreme Court renowned throughout the world for its independence and rigor. Ignoring the integrity of the Israeli justice system while claiming to uphold the principle of complementarity fundamentally undermines the very foundation of equal application of the law, potentially undermining confidence in international justice systems and weakening integrity. of the global justice system.
The suffering of the Palestinian people is undeniable, but the responsibility lies with Hamas, which deliberately entrenches itself in civilian areas, vilely transforming schools, places of worship and hospitals into legally legitimate military targets.
Canada, which places great importance on international institutions, must recognize the dangerous precedents set at the ICJ in the case brought by South Africa as well as by the ICC prosecutor and respond promptly. Actions currently taking place in international arenas threaten the ability of Western democracies to carry out self-defense operations. Canada, an active member of the Western alliance, could one day itself pay the price.