Why do the US and some Western countries prevent international justice bodies from applying justice on Israel which has encouraged Israel to rebel against international law and disdain the international community ?
Recent reports indicate that Israel is lobbying the United States to press South Africa to withdraw its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which should serve as a wake-up call for those who uphold the rule of law.
The case presented by South Africa, which charges that Israel carried out genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza, is neither trivial nor politically driven. The ICJ has determined that there exists a credible foundation to regard Israel's actions in Gaza as genocidal.
Israel's attempts to evade legal scrutiny by using its enduring ties with the United States illustrate a profound hypocrisy that Washington must renounce to maintain its image as a credible advocate of international law.
South Africa's choice to pursue this lawsuit shows its painful history of confronting institutionalized racism and oppression.
South Africa, having experienced the atrocities of apartheid, recognizes the terrible consequences of state-sanctioned violence and racial discrimination. The apartheid regime was abolished solely by persistent international pressure, encompassing sanctions, boycotts, and moral outrage.
It is impossible to ignore the similarities between the occupied Palestinian territory and South Africa during the apartheid era. South Africa's choice to oppose Israel internationally is based on its ethical obligation to address injustice wherever it arises.
This case is not merely a symbolic gesture. The legal argument is substantiated by the principles established in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The acts of Israel in Gaza, including the persistent blockade, recurrent military offensives resulting in significant civilian losses, and the devastation of vital Palestinian infrastructure, establish a distinct pattern that necessitates further scrutiny.
Educational institutions, medical facilities, and residential structures have been attacked, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. The ICJ provides a platform for the unbiased evaluation of these facts; yet, Israel's efforts to obstruct the case by appealing to the US indicate its fear with confronting legal repercussions.
The United States has a vital role to fulfill in this context. Historically, Washington has frequently protected Israel from international accountability by vetoing UN resolutions, giving diplomatic support, and granting unconditional military aid. This particular relationship, however, undermines the fundamental ideals that the US claims to stand for.
Pressuring South Africa to withdraw its ICJ case would unequivocally indicate that international law is merely a political instrument, selectively enforced when advantageous and disregarded when disadvantageous to the US and its allies.
American foreign policy, influenced significantly by pro-Israel lobbying organizations, has consistently exhibited a pronounced double standard.
The United States utilizes international law to denounce its rivals, such as Iran, Russia, and North Korea, while repeatedly overlooks transgressions committed by its allies, especially Israel. This hypocrisy undermines the integrity of international legal institutions and exacerbates animosity, especially in the Global South.
The perception of American double standards in the application of international law has fostered decades of instability in the Middle East and undermined Washington's reputation globally.
The ICJ is among the few remaining institutions dedicated to upholding a rules-based international order. Its function is to provide an impartial forum for the resolution of legal disputes between nations, grounded in law rather than power dynamics.
If the US succumbs to Israeli pressure and intervenes in this matter, it will significantly undermine the credibility of international law. The communication to the global community would assert that only weaker nations are subject to accountability, whereas dominant powers remain untouchable. This would exacerbate worldwide skepticism regarding international justice and reinforce the belief that the system is biased in favor of the powerful.
Furthermore, undermining the ICJ will empower Israel and other countries to operate with increased impunity. Israel's recurrent violations of international law, including its illegal settlements and disproportionate military assaults in Gaza, have frequently escaped accountability owing to US support.
Permitting Israel to escape scrutiny once more would merely encourage such transgressions, not solely by Israel, but by any nation aware that it can rely on the protection of a formidable ally. It is imperative that the world does not allow international law to lose its significance at this crucial moment.
The implications for US foreign policy are significant. For decades, the United States has portrayed itself as the advocate of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. However, actions speak louder than words.
Protecting Israel from accountability while lecturing other nations on human rights abuses reveals a profound hypocrisy. How can the United States insist on adherence to international norms from its adversaries while simultaneously working to undermine those norms for its allies? This double standard not only diminishes US credibility but also erodes the foundational structure of the international legal order that Washington professes to uphold.
This matter extends beyond Palestine/Israel. It is about whether the United States would maintain the post-World War II international legal structure or undermine it for immediate political gain.
The ICJ case is an opportunity for the US to demonstrate its dedication to the rule of law by abstaining from meddling and permitting the process to unfold. If Israel deems the allegations unfounded, it should embrace the chance to exonerate itself before an unbiased tribunal. If not, it should be held accountable, akin to any other state charged with serious crimes.
In an era where multilateralism faces challenges from authoritarianism and populism, the US must determine whether it advocates for justice or the selective enforcement of international law. The ICJ must operate without political intervention.
The United States must transcend short political interests. The world must decide whether to remember the United States as a champion of the rule of law or as a nation that compromised it when it was most inconvenient for its allies. The stakes are exceedingly high.
To uphold justice, the ICJ must be allowed to execute its mandate.