(Originally published in NewsMax.)
The recent decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, to order Israel to halt its military assault on Gaza’s Rafah is not only misguided but also deeply flawed.
It reflects a gross misunderstanding of the context and realities on the ground.
Israel is engaged in a defensive war against Hamas, a terrorist organization recognized as such for decades by both Europe and the United States. This war was provoked by Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel, which resulted in the murder of over 1,200 Jewish Israeli citizens, on Oct. 7, 2023.
The ICJ’s ruling, hailed by South Africa as “groundbreaking,” demonstrates an alarming lack of understanding and an overreach of its authority.
It’s reminiscent of an absurd scenario where a Nicaraguan court would demand that the United States turn over ownership of New Mexico to Mexico or a Cuban court would declare that Puerto Rico is now a possession of Cuba.
Just as those courts have no jurisdiction over American territories, the ICJ has no legitimate authority to dictate military strategies to a sovereign state like Israel, especially in matters of national defense.
South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide is baseless and ignores the fundamental right of a nation to defend itself against an aggressor.
The ICJ’s decision to side with this claim, despite having no means to enforce its orders, is a stark sign of Israel’s global isolation over its campaign in Gaza.
This ruling comes against the backdrop of global condemnation and increasing calls for Israel to cease its military operations, even from its closest ally, the United States.
Reading out the ruling, World Court president Nawaf Salam stated that the situation in the Palestinian enclave had deteriorated since the court last ordered Israel to take steps to improve it.
He claimed that conditions had been met for a new emergency order.
However, this perspective overlooks the root cause of the conflict: Hamas’s relentless attacks on Israeli civilians.
Israel’s military operations are not a campaign of extermination, but a necessary response to eradicate a persistent terrorist threat.
The ICJ ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza to let in aid and provide access for investigators.
While humanitarian concerns are valid, it is crucial to remember that Hamas often hijacks such aid to support its terrorist activities.
Israel’s primary objective is to protect its citizens and ensure that aid reaches those who need it, not those who use it to perpetuate violence.
Furthermore, it’s widely reported that Hamas grabs much of the aid provided by Israel and the United States and sells it to buy weapons, so while it looks like a wonderful thing having a pier installed to get to the “starving people in Gaza,” it is more like fake wrestling than reality.
The global community’s response, particularly the praise from South Africa, highlights a disturbing double standard.
The ruling was adopted by a 13-2 vote, with opposition only from Uganda and Israel itself.
South Africa’s jubilant reaction to the ruling is akin to North Korea praising a Cuban court’s decision to annex Florida. It’s an overreach and a display of bias against Israel.
Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism should be unquestionable.
The ICJ’s accusations of genocide and war crimes are not only unfounded but also ignore the context of self-defense.
An Israeli government spokesman aptly stated on the eve of the decision that “no power on Earth will stop Israel from protecting its citizens and going after Hamas in Gaza.”
This sentiment resonates with the fundamental right of any sovereign nation to defend itself against existential threats.
Israel started its armored attack on Rafah earlier this month in response to the Hamas-led invasion, which forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee.
Rafah has served as the last redoubt for thousands of Hamas fighters and their senior commanders. Israel cannot achieve its war aim of wiping out the Islamist militant group and rescuing its hostages without addressing the stronghold in Rafah.
The World Court’s decision, while lacking enforcement power, symbolizes a broader attempt to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and its right to self-defense.
It’s a misguided intervention that could potentially prolong the conflict and embolden Hamas. Israel’s military actions are aimed at ensuring the safety and security of its citizens, a right that should be respected by the international community.
Israel has repeatedly dismissed the case’s accusations of genocide as baseless, arguing that its operations in Gaza are self-defense and targeted at Hamas militants who attacked Israel on Oct. 7.
The ICJ’s ruling fails to acknowledge this context and instead perpetuates a narrative that unjustly vilifies Israel.
In conclusion, the ICJ’s ruling is not just a legal overreach but a moral failure.
It’s a stark reminder that international bodies often operate with biases that undermine true justice. Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism must be upheld, and the international community should support Israel’s efforts to ensure its security and sovereignty.
David Rubin is the former mayor of Shiloh, Israel, and a noted author and speaker on Israeli politics and security. Mayor Rubin and his son were victims of a terror attack, leading to David founding the Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund, dedicated to healing the trauma of children who have been victims of terrorist attacks.
