ICJ President, Nawaf Salam has a history of false claims against Israel (video clip)

Contrary to claims by mainstream media and pro-Hamas social media influencers, Israel remains fully compliant with international law, and allegations of genocide are baseless. The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) does not contradict Israel's military operations in Rafah. Despite the challenges of urban warfare, Israel consistently takes extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Gaza. In stark contrast, Hamas violates international law by operating within civilian infrastructure.  Several other of the court's rulings also show an inherent bias against Israel a fact that most mainstream media accounts glossed over if not outright ignored.

The ICJ ruling from last Friday did not order Israel to halt its operations. Instead, it directed Israel to avoid committing genocide in Rafahβ€”a directive Israel has adhered to and continues to honor. The reality is that Hamas is the only entity in Gaza with genocidal intent. Another fact often omitted in media coverage is that the Court demanded Palestinians release all hostages. ICJ Judge Bogdan Aurescu of Romania emphasized that the Court's order does not impede Israel's legitimate right to defend its citizens and free hostages, provided it adheres to international law's proportionality and necessity criteria.

Misguided Directive on Rafah Border

The ICJ also called for the reopening of the Rafah border crossing, a directive fundamentally flawed due to a critical oversight: the control of the Rafah border. The crossing, located at the southern border of the Gaza Strip, is controlled by Egypt. It is Egypt, not Israel, that has closed the crossing. This misdirected directive by the ICJ fails to address the actual party responsible. Any measures should be directed at Egypt, the entity with the authority to reopen the crossing.

Several judges, including those who supported the new measures, dissented on this point. They underscored that the measure should target Egypt rather than Israel. This oversight renders the ICJ's measure ineffective and highlights the importance of accurately identifying responsible parties in international legal actions to ensure their effectiveness and relevance. Egypt, fearing that Israel would find the dozens of tunnels used by Hamas to smuggle in weapons and contraband, has tried to prevent the Israel Defense Force (IDF) operation in Rafah.

Since the start of the war, the Muslim nation that was first to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish State back in 1979, has been vocally critical of Israel's attempt to root out Hamas. Since moving into Rafah on May 7th, Israel has uncovered over 50 tunnels, some the width of a highway, that traverse the Gaza-Egypt border. Egypt has been adamant since 2014 that all the tunnels had been destroyed, and that no smuggling tunnels existed. The ICJ ruling also fails to acknowledge Egypt's complicity in arming Hamas.

Unprecedented Demands and Procedural Issues

Another contentious ICJ measure asks Israel to allow international fact-finding missions, described as unprecedented by ICJ Vice-President Julia Sebutinde of Uganda. She notes that the ICJ has never before required a sovereign state to admit third-party observers, marking a significant deviation from international norms. This measure is controversial given that over 1,000 international personnel have already entered Gaza since November 2023, indicating robust monitoring mechanisms are in place.

The ICJ's handling of South Africa's request has raised significant procedural concerns. Israel was not given adequate time to file its written observations, and the ICJ did not consent to Israel's request to postpone the oral hearings. Additionally, the timing of the hearings required Israel to respond over the Jewish Sabbath, further complicating their ability to respond appropriately. Many observers believe this deliberate scheduling violated the Court's rules respecting religious beliefs, and was an affront to the Jewish State.

These procedural decisions have significant implications for procedural equality and the administration of justice. The lack of sufficient time for response and the unavailability of counsel impacted Israel's ability to be properly represented, raising serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

Israel's Right and Obligation to Defend Itself

Israel's ongoing military operations are crucial for liberating nearly 130 hostages still held in Gaza and for defeating Hamas militants who have vowed further atrocities. As with any sovereign nation, Israel possesses both the right and the obligation to defend its citizens. Efforts to undermine this right only serve to embolden jihadi ideologies. The ICJ's demand that the hostages be released was barely noted, yet compliance by Palestinians would compel Israel to ease its offensive.

The ICJ's involvement in this matter is seen as an attempt to delegitimize Israel. There exists a concerted effort to paint Israel as a colonialist, genocidal state to erode its right to exist. Hamas could end this conflict by releasing the hostages and ceasing attacks, yet it chooses to prolong the suffering. The ICJ's hearings force Israel to defend itself not only on the battlefield but also on the international stage against unfounded genocide allegations. These baseless claims detract from the true nature of the conflict and prolong the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel's Unparalleled Efforts to Protect Civilians

Israel's efforts to protect civilians during warfare are unparalleled. Despite a widespread global disinformation campaign, Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, exceeding international law requirements. This commitment has come at a significant cost, with over 270 Israeli soldiers losing their lives in close combat against Hamas terrorists, rather than opting for overwhelming aerial firepower that other nations might use.

Concerns About ICJ Bias

The ICJ's recent order, passed by a 13 to 2 vote, calls for Israel to "immediately halt" its military operations in Rafah. The court should never have accepted this case. ICJ President Nawaf Salam of Lebanon has a documented history of anti-Israel bias, making his participation deeply troubling and inappropriate. The ICJ's charter explicitly prohibits members from participating in cases where they have previously expressed a stance. Yet, Salam's past statements against Israel were ignored, compromising the court's impartiality.

The United Nations, International Criminal Court (ICC), and ICJ have undermined the international rules-based system with their handling of the Gaza situation. By treating authoritarian states as equal players, they have opened the door to abuse. This case should never have been heard, and the judicial process now poses a significant threat to future Western military operations. Fortunately, the UN Security Council's veto power can counter any unjust rulings from these compromised courts.


The ICJ's order does not prohibit Israel from continuing its military operations in Rafah. It only requires Israel to avoid actions that could lead to the physical destruction of civilians. Israel's ongoing efforts to protect civilian lives, despite Hamas's tactics, align with this directive, allowing it to continue its necessary operations in Rafah.

Sign Up For The Judean Newsletter

I agree with the Terms and conditions and the Privacy policy