Picture this: A judge in The Hague, sipping coffee and flipping through a stack of documents, while a Yemeni Houthi drone crashed into a Tel Aviv building, killing an Israeli citizen and injuring ten. They’re drinking coffee while coffee shops in Tel Aviv closed due to terror. While they were drinking their espressos on Friday morning, ahead of a useless hearing, missiles were sent from Lebanon towards Israeli towns, and Hamas kept on hiding 120 Israeli hostages in their underground tunnels.
It’s in this serene environment that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal under international law. ICJ judges, are you genuinely supporting a terrorist organization with this ruling?
Let’s start with the glaring omissions. The ICJ conveniently forgets the historical and legal mess that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The West Bank and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War—a defensive conflict, mind you—have never been sovereign Palestinian territories. But why bother with such details when you can make sweeping declarations from the comfort of The Hague? Do you prefer your judgments to be based on convenience rather than facts?
The ICJ also seems to have a selective memory regarding security concerns. Israeli settlements act as crucial buffers against the kind of aggressions that tend to happen when your neighbors aren’t exactly sending you fruit baskets. Judea and Samaria have been a breeding ground for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Suggesting that Israel dismantle these settlements without any security guarantees is like telling someone to take off their bulletproof vest in the middle of a shootout. Do you believe Israel should compromise its security for a romantic fantasy?
And then there’s the historical connection. The Jewish ties to east Jerusalem, home to the holiest sites in Judaism, stretch back thousands of years. But the ICJ waves this off as if it’s an annoying pop-up ad. Reducing millennia of Jewish presence to a mere political squabble is an insult to history and common sense. Are you seriously that dismissive of a people’s ancient heritage?
Why is the ICJ making its opinion known now?
The timing of this opinion is as impeccable as ever. It predates the current Israel-Hamas conflict but was delivered amidst heightened tensions. It’s almost as if the ICJ wanted to pour gasoline on a fire. Funny how that works. Are you deliberately trying to escalate the situation?
The UN General Assembly’s request to the ICJ is just another chapter in its long history of anti-Israel bias. Israel gets condemned by UN bodies more often than a bad restaurant on Yelp. This consistent targeting undermines the credibility of the UN and, by extension, the ICJ. But who needs credibility when you have politics? Do you enjoy turning severe legal matters into a circus?
The ICJ’s ruling is just the latest example of the Western world’s favorite pastime: abandoning Israel when it’s most convenient. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Western nations took their sweet time sending support while Israel faced coordinated attacks. It was only after significant casualties that aid finally showed up. Thanks a lot. Is it acceptable to delay aid until the damage is done? Then, in 2015, the West couldn’t sign the Iran Nuclear Deal fast enough, ignoring Israel’s legitimate security concerns. Prioritizing appeasement over real threats to Israel’s existence—what could go wrong? Are you comfortable with empowering regimes that openly call for Israel’s destruction?
The 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is another classic example. The Obama administration’s abstention on a resolution declaring Israeli settlements a violation of international law was another instance where political convenience triumphed over standing by your allies. Do you believe that abandoning allies is a sound strategy? And who could forget the Durban Conference in 2001? What was supposed to be a conference on racism turned into an anti-Israel bash-fest, with Western countries doing little to stop the madness. It set the stage for the one-sided judgment we see today from the ICJ. Do you condone such biased spectacles under the guise of international diplomacy?
These instances show a disturbing trend: when political winds change, the West is quick to throw Israel under the bus, prioritizing short-term gains over a balanced approach to Middle eastern peace and security. Do you not see the dangerous precedent this sets for global diplomacy?
The ICJ’s advisory opinion on Israeli settlements is less about law and more about politics. It dismisses the historical, security, and legal complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reinforcing international biases against Israel. True peace requires direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, free from external pressures and biased judicial opinions. Until then, can we expect more of the same old, same old from the ICJ and its ilk?