alvar on Nostr: The current advisory proceedings before the ICJ, which purport to assess Israel’s ...
The current advisory proceedings before the ICJ, which purport to assess Israel’s obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, flagrantly exhibit a selective bias that undermines the very fabric of international law. To proceed with an inquiry that isolates Israel for criticism—while disregarding the brutal and indiscriminate terror attacks perpetrated by non-state actors and their state sponsors—constitutes not only an aberration in the application of international legal principles but also a dangerous precedent for politicizing justice.
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every state possesses an inherent right of self-defense against armed attacks. Israel’s deployment of the Iron Dome, among other measures, is demonstrably a proportionate and lawful response to persistent and life-threatening terror assaults. This defensive posture, which has effectively saved countless lives, is routinely misunderstood by critics who neglect the stark reality: that the calculus of self-defense must account for the gravest of threats. To single out Israel for scrutiny—while ignoring comparable or even graver breaches committed by terror groups and their backers—egregiously distorts the principle of proportionality that underpins legitimate self-defense in international law.
Moreover, the ICJ’s decision to allow the participation of entities with a documented history of state hostility and even ethnic cleansing against Jews—actors who categorically do not recognize Israel’s statehood—only deepens the inherent bias of these proceedings. Such a procedural choice flagrantly contravenes the impartiality that is indispensable to any adjudicatory process that aspires to command global legitimacy. When the Court’s mandate is weaponized to attack democratically elected leaders—whose domestic legal systems have continuously demonstrated their capacity to prosecute terror and safeguard their citizens—it not only derails the spirit of complementarity, as enshrined in international jurisprudence, but also erodes the rule of law itself.
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every state possesses an inherent right of self-defense against armed attacks. Israel’s deployment of the Iron Dome, among other measures, is demonstrably a proportionate and lawful response to persistent and life-threatening terror assaults. This defensive posture, which has effectively saved countless lives, is routinely misunderstood by critics who neglect the stark reality: that the calculus of self-defense must account for the gravest of threats. To single out Israel for scrutiny—while ignoring comparable or even graver breaches committed by terror groups and their backers—egregiously distorts the principle of proportionality that underpins legitimate self-defense in international law.
Moreover, the ICJ’s decision to allow the participation of entities with a documented history of state hostility and even ethnic cleansing against Jews—actors who categorically do not recognize Israel’s statehood—only deepens the inherent bias of these proceedings. Such a procedural choice flagrantly contravenes the impartiality that is indispensable to any adjudicatory process that aspires to command global legitimacy. When the Court’s mandate is weaponized to attack democratically elected leaders—whose domestic legal systems have continuously demonstrated their capacity to prosecute terror and safeguard their citizens—it not only derails the spirit of complementarity, as enshrined in international jurisprudence, but also erodes the rule of law itself.