Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]
The ICJ’s malign bias was in full spate when it recently voted to demand that the IDF cease its military offensive in Rafah. Were that to happen, the Israeli goal of dismantling Hamas would not have been achieved, and Hamas could present itself as the victorious party, for it would still be standing despite all that the IDF had thrown at it. Hamas’ remaining operatives, starting with the four intact battalions in Rafah, would be able to regroup, and to repeat the October 7 attack on Israel, as it has promised, “again and again.”
The Wall Street Journal has denounced the ICJ ruling: “‘Your bias is outrageous’: WSJ editorial condemns ICJ ruling against Israel,” Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2024:
The ICJ’s call for a halt in IDF operations in Rafah is just “another anti-Israel ruling in the Hague”, the Wall Street Journal commented in a recent editorial on May 24.
Last Friday, the ICJ ruled 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.”
The WSJ however responded to this ruling by stating that “the only group Israel aims to destroy in Rafah is Hamas,” who, ironically, are not party to the ICJ trial as a non-member. WSJ comments on the double-standards of “demand[ing] nothing of [Hamas], while seeming to tell Israel unilaterally to stop fighting in the terrorists’ last stronghold.”
The editorial claimed that Israel’s evacuation of Rafah – amounting to about a million Gazans – was done “expertly” and draws attention to Israel’s need to bring back the hostages: “The ICJ knows that Hamas refuses to release them.”
“The judges effectively asked Israel to abandon the hostages.”
Despite calling for an immediate halt to IDF operations in Rafah – where the IDF believes Hamas is holding over 100 hostages – the court spoke little of the reason the IDF entered the city in the first place. The Court did not directly call on Hamas to release the hostages, despite calling on Israel to cease operations….
Israel did not want, and did not start, the war in Gaza. The ICJ does not make that clear. Its narrative begins with the IDF fighting in Gaza, and not with the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 inside Israel.. Nor does the ICJ call for the release of the Israeli hostages, though it does not hesitate to call on Israel to end its operations in Rafah.
“What they are asking us, is not to commit genocide in Rafah. We did not commit genocide and we will not commit genocide,” National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Channel 12 news in an interview, last Saturday [May 25]….
The ICJ demands that Israel not commit “genocide” in Rafah. But there is no possibility of that happening. The IDF has not committed “genocide” anywhere in Gaza, as the ICJ demand suggests it may have. done so. Instead, the IDF has made tremendous efforts to limit civilian casualties, largely through its multi-layered warning system. It has sent 15 million text messages, made 16 million prerecorded telephone calls and 100,000 personal calls, and dropped 9 million leaflets, all warning civilians to leave areas, and buildings, that are about to be targeted. Those warnings have largely succeeded. And just now, within less than three weeks, the IDF warnings have led one million people to leave Rafah for “safe” areas in Al-Mawasi and Khan Younis.
The WSJ editorial continued by saying that “the inversion of international law is something to behold: Hamas slaughters Israeli civilians and hides behind its own so that Israel stands accused.”
They accused the ICJ’s judges of outrageous bias: one of the presiding justices, Nawaf Salam, has long denounced Israel whilst remaining active in Lebanese politics, “having twice been a candidate for prime minister since joining the bench in The Hague.”
As a candidate for prime minister in Lebanon, Nawaf Salam made many extreme anti-Israel remarks which, one might think, would be evidence of his bias sufficient to have him recuse himself from ruling on the claim brought against Israel by South Africa, but he did not.
The WSJ agrees with the Israeli assessment that the war can only end when the four battalions of Hamas fighters that remain intact in Rafah have been defeated and dismantled. And it argues that the ICJ shows bad faith in three ways: first, in not calling for the immediate release of the hostages by Hamas; second, by not recognizing the IDF’s colossal campaign to warn civilians away from areas about to be targeted; and third, by the presiding justice of the ICJ, Nawaf Salam, with his history of anti-Israel statements made when he was twice a candidate for prime minister of Lebanon, refusing to recuse himself from a case brought against the Jewish state by South Africa.
SPURWING PLOVER says
One of Clintons(Bill) last acts of Treason against America was signing America into this whole ICC travesty
Intrepid says
Clinton may have signed it but Congress did not approve it. How many times are you going to lie about this?
Chief Mac says
The world refuses to forgive Jews for surviving the previous EuroTrash regime
David Elstrom says
Neither the US or Israel are signatories to the treaty that created the leftist busybody entity known as the ICJ. I’d like to see the globalists try to enforce their idiotic indictment against a sovereign nation.
Robert L. Kahlcke says
DEATH TO HAMAS.
God Bless Israel. Period
Alkflaeda says
One reason why Salam does not recuse himself is that his deputy, Judge Julia Sebutinde, would act in his place. And she’s the principled lady who refused to vote against Israel on any of the charges in January.