The International Court of Justice in the Hague, responding to an Arab-sponsored UN resolution, has agreed to hear the case against Israel's anti-terrorist security fence. By agreeing to participate in these proceedings, Israel has placed itself in a no-win situation. If the court decides in Israel's favor, the Arabs can simply accuse it of caving in to Zionist pressure. But if it decides against Israel, there will be enormous international pressure to obey the court's findings.
The proceeding is not actually a trial. For the ICJ to try a case, both parties have to agree to the trial. Instead, the court is being asked to render a non-binding advisory opinion on the fence. This it can do whether Israel participates or not. But there are important reasons why Israel should not participate.
The chief danger is not the final decision of the court, but the proceeding itself. Under court rules, any UN member state may give verbal testimony, and the Palestinian Authority, though not a member state, has observer status and will also be allowed to testify. Israel's leaders think they'll defeat the Arab accusations by telling the truth. But from the Arab perspective, truth is immaterial. The important thing is that there will be a highly publicized international forum in which the vast majority of speakers will be anti-Israel and anti-Jewish; a forum in which they can hurl slander and invective at Israel and the Jews day after day after day, assured of worldwide coverage.
The proceedings will likely be accompanied by well-orchestrated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish demonstrations throughout Europe, some of which could easily turn violent. We may see stepped up attacks on Jewish institutions and individuals, with authorities deploring the situation, but offering scant protection. In short, it could be Durban again, but worse. Israeli participation will simply energize the enemy, while guaranteeing broader media coverage.
Nor should Israel expect the court itself to be friendly to its cause. On the court's official website (www.icj-cij.org), the case is titled as follows: "Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory."
In other words, on the most important question of all, the question of who actually owns the land, the court has already decided in favor of the Arabs. For this reason alone, they should be disqualified from judging the case on grounds of prejudice against one of the parties.
There are other reasons for questioning the court's ability to decide this case. The purpose of any court is to render judgments according to law. On what body of law does the ICJ base its decisions? From where do its judgments really spring? Again quoting from their website, under the heading "sources of applicable law", we find the following: "The Court decides in accordance with international treaties and conventions in force, international custom, the general principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists."
In other words, aside from treaties that nations have already signed, there really is no body of law underlying the ICJ, just "customs" and "general principles". What this really means is that their decisions are basically arbitrary and based on what "feels right" to them, in accordance with their secular and socialist worldview. One may assume that their decisions will be heavily influenced by politics, and that they're likely to rule in favor of whoever is angriest and makes the most noise. We can be sure that God's role in the world will not be considered in their deliberations.
Israel can easily escape the trap that the Arabs are laying for it at the ICJ, but to do so will require emuna, or faith. Israel must declare to the world, in a tone of certainty, that it is governed by Jewish laws, which, in the Land of Israel, take precedence over all other laws. In particular, foreign courts such as the ICJ have no standing and no jurisdiction in any matter concerning the Land of Israel. Therefore, Israel will not participate in, or recognize the validity of, any proceedings conducted by such courts. But if Israel participates in the proceedings in any way at all, even if it just submits written arguments, it is granting legitimacy to the court and increasing the damage it can cause.
Rejecting the ICJ will require a big change in Israel's approach to the international community. The Jewish state has long been a promoter of international law and international courts. After the Holocaust, it was felt that an international legal system might be able to prevent a recurrence of such events. If tyrants could be charged in international courts, it might restrain them from committing some of their crimes.
Unfortunately, this hope was misplaced. So-called "international law" has not been effective in stemming the tide of injustice in the world. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any international courts. But the Jewish nation, which has its own divinely ordained laws, should not cast aside those laws in order to accept judgment from courts based on faithlessness and disbelief.
Some will say that Israel can't afford to reject the ICJ, because that will make it a pariah state, and increase its international isolation. In fact, the reverse is true. History has shown that when we stand firm on our principles, the world respects us, but when we sacrifice our principles in order to please non-Jews, we reap nothing but contempt. The sooner we return to our authentic heritage, and accept the sovereignty of God, and our responsibilities under the Covenant, and the sooner we fear God more than we fear Man, and act accordingly, the sooner we'll be at peace with the world and secure in our own homeland.
The proceeding is not actually a trial. For the ICJ to try a case, both parties have to agree to the trial. Instead, the court is being asked to render a non-binding advisory opinion on the fence. This it can do whether Israel participates or not. But there are important reasons why Israel should not participate.
The chief danger is not the final decision of the court, but the proceeding itself. Under court rules, any UN member state may give verbal testimony, and the Palestinian Authority, though not a member state, has observer status and will also be allowed to testify. Israel's leaders think they'll defeat the Arab accusations by telling the truth. But from the Arab perspective, truth is immaterial. The important thing is that there will be a highly publicized international forum in which the vast majority of speakers will be anti-Israel and anti-Jewish; a forum in which they can hurl slander and invective at Israel and the Jews day after day after day, assured of worldwide coverage.
The proceedings will likely be accompanied by well-orchestrated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish demonstrations throughout Europe, some of which could easily turn violent. We may see stepped up attacks on Jewish institutions and individuals, with authorities deploring the situation, but offering scant protection. In short, it could be Durban again, but worse. Israeli participation will simply energize the enemy, while guaranteeing broader media coverage.
Nor should Israel expect the court itself to be friendly to its cause. On the court's official website (www.icj-cij.org), the case is titled as follows: "Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory."
In other words, on the most important question of all, the question of who actually owns the land, the court has already decided in favor of the Arabs. For this reason alone, they should be disqualified from judging the case on grounds of prejudice against one of the parties.
There are other reasons for questioning the court's ability to decide this case. The purpose of any court is to render judgments according to law. On what body of law does the ICJ base its decisions? From where do its judgments really spring? Again quoting from their website, under the heading "sources of applicable law", we find the following: "The Court decides in accordance with international treaties and conventions in force, international custom, the general principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists."
In other words, aside from treaties that nations have already signed, there really is no body of law underlying the ICJ, just "customs" and "general principles". What this really means is that their decisions are basically arbitrary and based on what "feels right" to them, in accordance with their secular and socialist worldview. One may assume that their decisions will be heavily influenced by politics, and that they're likely to rule in favor of whoever is angriest and makes the most noise. We can be sure that God's role in the world will not be considered in their deliberations.
Israel can easily escape the trap that the Arabs are laying for it at the ICJ, but to do so will require emuna, or faith. Israel must declare to the world, in a tone of certainty, that it is governed by Jewish laws, which, in the Land of Israel, take precedence over all other laws. In particular, foreign courts such as the ICJ have no standing and no jurisdiction in any matter concerning the Land of Israel. Therefore, Israel will not participate in, or recognize the validity of, any proceedings conducted by such courts. But if Israel participates in the proceedings in any way at all, even if it just submits written arguments, it is granting legitimacy to the court and increasing the damage it can cause.
Rejecting the ICJ will require a big change in Israel's approach to the international community. The Jewish state has long been a promoter of international law and international courts. After the Holocaust, it was felt that an international legal system might be able to prevent a recurrence of such events. If tyrants could be charged in international courts, it might restrain them from committing some of their crimes.
Unfortunately, this hope was misplaced. So-called "international law" has not been effective in stemming the tide of injustice in the world. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any international courts. But the Jewish nation, which has its own divinely ordained laws, should not cast aside those laws in order to accept judgment from courts based on faithlessness and disbelief.
Some will say that Israel can't afford to reject the ICJ, because that will make it a pariah state, and increase its international isolation. In fact, the reverse is true. History has shown that when we stand firm on our principles, the world respects us, but when we sacrifice our principles in order to please non-Jews, we reap nothing but contempt. The sooner we return to our authentic heritage, and accept the sovereignty of God, and our responsibilities under the Covenant, and the sooner we fear God more than we fear Man, and act accordingly, the sooner we'll be at peace with the world and secure in our own homeland.