Israel and the illusion of international justice
By Gerald Steinberg, Anne Herzberg Tags: Israel newsSpeaking at a legal conference on January 4, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak suggested that Israel would benefit from participation in bodies such as the International Criminal Court in order to fight for "its positions and justice." In endorsing Barak's recommendation, a Haaretz editorial ("Join the Court," January 6) contended that such participation would "place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations." Similarly, the argument goes, Israel erred in refusing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission and the International Court of Justice proceedings on the security barrier.
While surely well-intentioned, in practice this line of thinking is pure folly. The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries. In such morally corrupt frameworks, international law and human rights have become political weapons, disconnected from legitimate judicial processes and legal systems in democratic societies.
The ICJ's handling of the 2004 case regarding Israel's security barrier is a telling example. The suit was initiated by the UN General Assembly at the behest of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. European-funded advocacy groups such as B'Tselem, aided by NGO superpowers Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were central to this effort.
Legal scholars sharply criticized the court for accepting a predetermined political mandate from the UN and for its breach of procedural protocols in deliberations on the matter. The ICJ's resulting advisory opinion negated Israel's right of self-defense and displayed an utter lack of sympathy for terror victims. Its simplistic and troubling legal analysis clearly reflected the influence of the Arab League and politicized NGOs. Hardly an independent judicial inquiry, this distorted proceeding encouraged subversion of the rule of law, rather than its enforcement, by allowing for political manipulation of the judicial process.
Similar problems plague the ICC. Calls for the creation of an ICC were first made in the late 1980s by Caribbean and Latin American countries seeking international support in trying drug traffickers, and were bolstered by the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Following a massive push by NGOs, the ICC statute was finalized in Rome in 1998, covering the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the court began operations in 2002.
Some complain that the ICC in practice has become an "African court" that lets Western democracies off the hook, but this claim is unjustified. Although NGOs pressed for the ICC to have wide-ranging jurisdiction, it was intended to be a court of last resort for the very worst crimes, adjudicating only those cases that could not be fairly tried in national courts due to the lack of a competent judiciary.
From the beginning, Israel strongly backed the idea of an international court based on the Nuremberg precedent. But, as happened with other international legal bodies, the ICC process was co-opted by nondemocratic forces. Arab and Islamic regimes succeeding in changing the court's statute at the last minute to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime while omitting terrorism as an offense. This overt politicization of the court forced Israel to withdraw its support.
Following the Gaza war, the PLO pressured ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to open a case against Israel, even though "Palestine" is not a state and doing so would be a gross violation of the court's treaty. Moreno-Ocampo has admitted to working closely with the Arab League in this process. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, funded primarily by European governments, is also deeply involved in this one-sided effort, as are Amnesty and HRW.
These same Arab League members have hypocritically and repeatedly offered shelter to indicted war criminal Omar Bashir of Sudan, refusing to hand him over to the court to stand trial. Thus the countries that dominate the UN system use their power to control and manipulate its institutions for their own interests - not in pursuit of universal justice.
The careful balance that Justice Barak developed in Israeli jurisprudence in weighing human rights claims against security needs receives no respect from the Arab League and its NGO allies, whose political demands international institutions are unable or unwilling to resist. Barak's wishful thinking to the contrary, it would have made no difference if Israel had participated in the ICJ case or even the Goldstone mission. The record clearly indicates that any information provided by Israel would have been twisted and discounted to fit predetermined conclusions. Claims that Israeli cooperation could have changed the outcome have no basis.
Refusing to be a party to this sort of legal travesty does not mean Israel is insensitive to international law or human rights, or that the Jewish state does not wish to be a member of the international community. Nor should this principled position be used to claim that Israel is trying to shield itself from critical inquiry - far from it. Israel's Supreme Court is a leading adherent and innovator of international law and is a major proponent of human rights.
To suggest that Israel could exert any influence on bodies where nondemocratic regimes wield excessive power, however, is a pipe dream that has no connection to today's unfortunate reality.
Gerald Steinberg is a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor; Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor's legal advisor
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
This article highlights the typical approach of the anti-human rights groups like NGO Monitor. Steinberg states: "Legal scholars sharply criticized the court," however in reality, the great majority of legal scholars supported the court, and it was a small minority of politically motivated lawyers who criticized it. So, when he says "Legal scholars sharply criticized..." he doesn't mention that it was the extreme minority opinion.
Ramiro... So you're the putz... who lives in a cave. I've been looking for you, and how is that going for you... anyway. Exceptionalism... universality, what is that a euphemism for... silence is the sound of the earth spinning. Pull your pants-up... Ramiro, your ignorance is showing.
one preaches exceptionalism US style the other universalism which doesn't pay homage to globalization and capital above all else. i know which one i prefer.
one preaches exceptionalism US style the other universalism which doesn't pay homage to globalization and capital above all else. i know which one i prefer.
one preaches exceptionalism US style the other universalism which doesn't pay homage to globalization and capital above all else. i know which one i prefer.
True, only zionist mythology!
The most coherent article on the subject. No Chomsky bull or mamby-pamby arguments here. Politicization of international organs have no legal standing what so ever. It makes the process of adjudication a tool of propaganda and hypocrisy... and will not resolve regional conflicts. If anything... it only achieves the opposite effect. In the very least, it breathes oxygen into terrorist mentality world wide. Non-democratic Islamic nations have no experience with jurisprudence. It is the Achilles heel and the reason they struggle with legitimacy of their own existence.
Israel continues to occupy and deny Palestinians their rights. Membership in Organizations such as International Criminal Court cannot defend settlements and injustice.
The problem with Israel is that after 60 years the Israeli start to believe their own propaganda. The strange thing is that some couintries are still defending Israel, in a way obstructing the enforcing of international law. Making rights for the Palestinian civil population an illusion.
If the ICC is controlled by the islamic states, which apparently try to protect Bashir, how could it be that the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Bashir in the first place?
I am saddened by this article. The authors have a large and damaging mote in their eyes. Nonetheless, I appreciate the access which Haaratz provides to their global readership of the angry "bunker" mentality which so threatens the future of what was once a respected community/country.
Israel took nothing from the Palestinians. Prior to the 6 Day War, Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was Jordanian, the Palestinians having explicitly disclaimed territorial sovereignty over those areas in 1964. In the history of the universe, one and only one nation has given land to the Palestinians - Israel. And the Palestinians' response was to fire mortars and rockets into Southern Israel. I know that the facts mean nothing to you, but they matter to Israel.
While Israel was seen as the victim, it had world backing but now with the settlements and Cast Lead that has changed some. Israel has a hard choice either one state where all the Palestinians become citizens, which would destroy Israel as a Jewish state or a 2 state solution which would mean giving up most of the settlements. The problem is that the status quo is better than either option but Obama may soon force Israel to choose the 2 state option. What do the refugees gain out of a two state option? very little and that is the biggest problem for a peace deal.
"The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries." It is funny that the only NATO countries I can think of that have not ratified the ICC are Turkey and USA. How do all the other NATO countries put up with the injustices? With the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan one would think that the mighty and evil Islamic nations would be punishing them severely... And your notion that the Supreme Court guarantees that Israel abides by international law and human rights is BS. Even *if* the court enforced the rules the government wouldn't abide by them. Much in the same way that it already disregards rulings on Palestinian rights, which we see each week or month in the paper.
if it subjects its racist theocratic actions to a court not driven by Talmudic extremism...
So there we have it. From a so-called academic expert on conflict resolution who has become the self-appointed scourge of the NGO community we now have an essay on how and why successive governments of Israel need not be accountable to the international community. So how about being accountable to the people of this nation. But no. Instead we have a man who reflects these views in the Prime Minister of the day, Netanyahu. He goes to London to see Brown and seek a deal - help me with Iran and I'll talk peace with the Palestinians. And instead of meeting the Jewish press Netanyahu finds time to tell a press conference how he wants the British to stop funding Breaking the Silence. Priorities? Ridiculous. Accountability? None.
A country whose very existence depends in the perpetuation of criminal colonial practices can never join an international justice body, nor submit itself to the will of the international community. That would be its undoing, so it's only natural Israel continuous disregard for International Law and UN resolutions. The majority of countries in the world are indeed poor developing ones (not just Islamic), and they will hardly forget the suffering brought on them by colonialism to let Israel's crimes go unaddressed.
This is same old argument: everyone else is wrong, political, immoral, but Israel knows all and should stand in isolation as the only state with pure intentions. This has the same flaw as the argument that Israel only negotiate with Palestinians when they stop bombing Israel. Excuse me, but if you take your hand out of the fire, it won't get burnt any more. If you don't commit any crimes, the international court will not have any case against you. If you give back to the Palestinians what you have taken, then they will leave you be. That is what negotitation is about, why people and nations compromise. Germany for example gave up its claim on Pomerania so that it could have peace with its neighbours and the world, even while noone doubts that it was German territory. Take responsibility for your actions in an international court, even if your own actions are politically motivated. That is what it is to live in the world, rather than isolated from it.
" Arab and Islamic regimes succeeding in changing the court's statute at the last minute to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime while omitting terrorism as an offense." Both are offenses. Settlements don't justify terrorism. And terrorism does not justify settlements. Your complaint may be that terrorism is insufficiently condemned. But this does not absolve you of your own crimes of settlements. By all means, press the courts to condemn terrorism more. But don't press it to de-criminalize settlements. Because they are criminal.
"The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries" Lets remind the authors regarding the Goldstone Report, that even many of the *democratic* European nations have given due credit to this reports perfectly sound recommendations. Nor did the ICC seek to deny Israel the right to build a defensive Wall, merely that the wall *IF* truly defensive would not have been built snaking its way across the occupied territories dissecting villagers from their fields as it snaked![lest it look more like a further land grabbing exercise] More generally, when one sees the way that 'so called' democratic nations circumvent and take control of these same 'international institutions' has led for example to the perversion and subversion of international law in the prosecution of Serbian war crimes under the pressure of the US and European Governments, whilst American/NATO crimes in the Balkan conflict were explicitly taken out of the bounds of investigating bodies. http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/jertzback.htm#q The similarly abusive relationship with international body responsible for formulating military conduct in war and the very legality of decisions made to go to war was exhibited [in a way more familiar than the Balkans, to almost everyone who has bothered to take notice]in the decision to proceed with what became a genocidal war against Iraq in 2003 on the most spurious grounds possible. The problem the major nations[not just democratic]have with the UN is that the overwhelming level of control the major powers once had of this institution [on its founding] have been eroded as a result of decolonization. Subsequent efforts at economic re-colonization accompanied by militarism of varying forms to facilitate such actions have not suppressed the demands for a more just and balanced method of deciding on legality of acts of war and crimes of war. No amount of supercilious and self serving drivel as is evident in this article can detract from that perfectly legitimate desire.
You only have to read in here about the daily discrminiation against Arabs and Palestinians under the Israeli system, that goes almost completely unchecked by Israeli courts.
And Israel hijacked the US Congress and therefore to a major extent also the US White House - which has a lot more clout in the world than any "international court" or even the UN. Israel still has the advantage, stop whining. Israel, calling itself the "only democracy in the ME" should know how democracy works - the majority has the advantage. Apparently the majority in these international institutions is not to happy right now with Israeli war crimes. So Israel will just have to work a bit harder to find more nations that do support oppression, occupation and the use of WMDs on civilians besides the US, the Marshall Islands and Palau and such.....
the problem is not with the geneva conventions. the problem is with the small crop of public international jurists whose agenda is to set up a supranational body of law which is outside of the framework of sovereign states. these jurists suffer from the self-delusion that they can be more just and humane than all other jurists. these jurists are not part of a system of checks and balances which are part of democratic systems. to the contrary, they are dictatorial in their attitudes and in their practice. the idea that the prosecutor of the icc might violate the treaty which had created the court in order to hear complaints from non-state agents only proves the dictatorial tendencies of international jurists.