Israeli Acquiescence to International Court of Justice Scrutinized

What’s happening:

Professor Alan Dershowitz, noted American-Jewish jurist, has strongly voiced his opinion that Israel should reject the jurisdiction and potential rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding South Africa’s genocide lawsuit against Israel.

Why it matters:

The legitimacy and objectivity of the ICJ are called into question by Dershowitz, evoking concerns about politicization of the legal process at the international level, which could influence perception and actions toward Israel’s dealings in conflict scenarios.

Details:

In an interview with Ynet Live ahead of the ICJ’s decision on the lawsuit, Dershowitz derided the court as politically motivated, advising against both submission to its jurisdiction and compliance with any forthcoming rulings. Citing the selection process of the court’s judges and the questionable handling of justice, he labelled the authenticity of the judicial process as “absurd.”

The Big Picture:

Israel is under international legal scrutiny with South Africa accusing it of genocide, a heavy allegation that comes amidst geopolitical pressures and conflicts impacting both Israel’s international standing and its national policy.

Dershowitz’s Take:

Dershowitz maintained Israel’s defiance of Palestinian forces, assessing the number of civilian casualties as proportionally lower than in other modern conflicts and highlighted Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian harm.

While recognizing the capabilities of Israel’s defense team and the shrewd selection of Justice Aharon Barak as its representative, he doubted any real effect their arguments might have on the court’s predetermined decisions, influenced by individual country policies overriding legal consideration.

Context:

Dershowitz revealed his own possible inclination to challenge the court’s jurisdiction rather than delve into the merits of the case itself, reflecting his staunch perspective against the ICJ’s legitimacy insofar as it concerns Israel’s actions.

Zingers:

The discourse goes beyond legal parlance as it intertwines with Israeli politics, triggering debates about the timing of elections during wartime, and underlining the constant tension between democratic procedures and national security concerns.

Bottom line:

For advocates like Dershowitz, the overarching narrative is clear: dismiss any verdicts from what he refers to as an ersatz court and uphold Israel’s sovereign decisions while from his perspective continuously defending its democracy and military ethics.

This story was first published on ynetnews.com.