The expression, “the inmates are running the asylum” is old hat, but it happens to be a fitting description for what we are dealing with globally these days.
Gone is respect for law: now anything and everything goes. (We’ll see examples of this situation going forward.) Gone is respect for differences of opinion. Gone is the understanding that free speech does not encompass the right to be violent. Gone is a readiness to differentiate between democracies and terror organizations.
~~~~~~~~~~
One of the most striking examples of a world gone mad is the declaration by Chief Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan of the International Criminal Court in the Hague that he is seeking warrants for the arrest of Binyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, Israeli Minister of Defense, for crimes against humanity in the fighting of the war against Hamas in Gaza (starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and willful killing).
The warrants have not yet been issued. Khan’s request must now be considered by the three judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber. I had harbored some hope that this chamber might reject Khan’s request following a hearing. It is still possible, but my sense of the situation at this point is that this is a process that is likely to be carried out, although it would take an extensive period of time.
Never before has the head of a democracy been threatened with arrest by the ICC: in the past it has gone after the likes of as Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, and former Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi (without significant success, I note).
~~~~~~~~~~
Adding outrageous insult to his stand against leaders of Israel is Khan’s simultaneous announcement that he is also seeking the arrest of Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mohammed Deif, who are guilty of crimes against humanity because of actions against Israeli citizens (extermination, murder, hostage taking, torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and other inhumane acts).
What he has done is attempt to draw a moral equivalency between the actions of a democracy and a terrorist entity, saying “If we do not demonstrate our willingness to apply the law equally if it is seen as being applied selectively, we will be creating the conditions for its collapse.”
This mockery of justice makes the head spin.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu’s response: “The prosecutor’s absurd charges against me and Israel’s defense minister are merely an attempt to deny Israel the basic right of self-defense,” an attempt that “will utterly fail.” Netanyahu stated.
It will also undermine the right of “every democracy to defend itself” against terror organizations.
“…Through this incendiary decision, Mr. Khan takes his place among the great antisemites in modern times. He now stands alongside those infamous German judges who donned their robes and upheld laws that denied the Jewish people their most basic rights and enabled the Nazis to perpetrate the worst crime in history.” (Emphasis added)
Minister Benny Gantz called Kahn’s actions “a crime of historic proportions.”
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-801877
~~~~~~~~~~
The legal underpinning for the ICC is the Rome Statute, and the Court’s legal status is shaky. Many have questioned its authority to issue arrest warrants, calling the Court a “tool of political pressure.” There are a good number of states that are not signatories to the Statute, including USA, China, Ukraine, and Russia, as well as Israel.
The Court has no jurisdiction over Israel. No one can come here and arrest Bibi. Nor would he be at risk of arrest in any of the many countries that are not signatories of the Rome Statute. But naturally, there are countries that would be pleased to participate, and have already let this be known.
As I understand the quasi-legal argument with regard to the Court’s authority to issue a warrant for our prime minister’s arrest: on January 1, 2015, the “Government of Palestine” lodged a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over alleged crimes committed “in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014.”
https://www.pgaction.org/ilhr/rome-statute/palestine.html
But wait! What “government of Palestine”? All very shaky indeed – and keep going for more on this. According to the Prosecutor’s thinking here, Israel’s leaders can be charged because the alleged “crimes” took place in Gaza, which is “occupied Palestinian territory,” where the Court is said to have jurisdiction.
~~~~~~~~~~
Were warrants to be issued against Netanyahu and Gallant, they could only be arrested if they entered the territory of the one of the states that has signed the Rome Statute.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the Court, was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on July 17, 1998; it entered into force on July 1, 2002. As of February 2024, 124 states are party to the statute.
~~~~~~~~~~
The ICC was established much more recently than the International Court of Justice, which is also in the Hague. The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations. While the ICC prosecutes individuals, this court deals with nations.
Israel has the very dubious distinction right now of being the focus within both Courts: with the charges brought by S. Africa in the ICC regarding Israel having committed “genocide” in Gaza. Egypt is the country that has most recently joined the lawsuit initiated by S. Africa, alongside four other countries.
~~~~~~~~~~
But let us turn here to the matter of “Palestine” as a state.
When we speak of “the state of Palestine,” we are referring to the Palestinian Authority, which aspires to “statehood.”
This is hardly a new issue, but it raises its head time and again – right now most inauspiciously.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) came into being as a result of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement, signed between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1994. This was the first follow-up to the Oslo Accords of 1993.
I wonder how many looking at this picture remember that when Arafat extended his hand to then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, Rabin hesitated and didn’t take the hand at first. Facing Arafat, an inveterate terrorist, he faced his doubts. But shake his hand he did. Because it was really too late to back out? Because he hoped that maybe, maybe something good might come of this?
According to the Accords, the PA, an administrative entity, was to be an interim body for a period of five years. Further negotiations were meant to take place between Israel and the PLO regarding its final status. The term “final status” left the door open to various possibilities. Nowhere in the Oslo Accords did it specify that the PA would become a state. Rabin, in a statement to the Knesset in 1995, stated that he envisioned something less than a full state.
That final status – whatever it was to be – was to be determined via mutual agreement in the course of negotiations. There was no room for unilateral establishment of a final Palestinian entity within the Oslo Accords.
And please note: the US signed the Oslo documents as a witness. One might think, which would be silly, that the US might feel obliged to honor the spirit of the Accords.
~~~~~~~~~~
And now, here we are, 30 years later, with no final resolution. There has been no resolution because the PLO did not actually seek resolution – a final entity, which would have required signing on to end of conflict and recognition of the state of Israel next to a Palestinian state.
(This saved us from a tragic fate: Israel did not adequately grapple with the implications of a Palestinian state back in the 1990s and following. In the years since, our nation has moved right politically and has developed a stronger sense of our connection to the land and a more solid recognition of our rights.)
When then-prime minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a very good deal for a state, Arafat refused. Subsequently, when then-prime minister Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, an even better deal, he too refused.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is clear, upon examination of various documents and statements of the PLO, is that what was sought was never a state next to Israel, but the weakening and ultimately the destruction of the state of Israel, with the PA taking over the entire area. The rest was pretense. The Palestinian Arabs are excellent at pretense.
We see the expression of this intention in the PA textbooks, which teach children that every Israeli city and village is really Palestinian – and even on PA TV. And we hear it in the cries of fools on American campuses who, picking up on that theme, shout, “From the river to the sea,” even as they are not sure where the river in question is. (Hint: It is the Jordan River, which forms the eastern boundary of Israel.)
For a long time, negotiations were carried forward without genuine intent on the part of the PA of reaching resolution. Today, we are past negotiations on a “final status,” for the malign intent of the PA is very evident.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, while we are past negotiations, the Palestinian Authority refers to itself as a “state,” and has declared intentions of moving forward on this unilaterally. And now there are nations – Norway, Ireland, and Spain – ready to recognize “the state of Palestine.” We have recalled our ambassadors to these countries in protest.
The UN is also involved here, with regard to what status it chooses to confer upon the PA; I may return to this on another day.
~~~~~~~~~~
This current situation has not evolved in a vacuum. Secretary of State Blinken has made a considerable contribution. For many months we have heard him speak about “the Palestinian people’s legitimate right to dignity, freedom, justice, and self-determination.”
He, on behalf of the Biden administration, is promoting the PA as the entity to take over Gaza after Hamas is defeated by Israel. Below you see him visiting with Mahmoud Abbas late last year.
His reasons for supporting this position are not entirely clear (for it seems, when assessed logically, to be a very unwise position), except for the fact that the progressive elements in the US are big supporters of the Palestinian Arabs.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are very few players in this scenario who are paying attention to the fact that there are actually criteria for recognizing the establishment of a state under international law.
An agreement was signed at the Montevideo Convention, in Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, that established the standard definition of a state under international law.
The general criteria for a state include a permanent population and defined territorial boundaries, a government (some say an effective government, however that is defined), and an ability to conduct international relations. It is my understanding that the state must have jurisdiction over the land within those defined boundaries.
Quite simply, the PA does not meet these criteria, most particularly with regard to defined territorial boundaries.
~~~~~~~~~~
Our government is strongly opposed to the PA taking the reins in Gaza; a solid portion of our population concurs. The agreement at Montevideo totally aside, the PA is problematic for a number of other reasons (all of which I have touched upon in previous posts):
The PA is notoriously corrupt and has an abysmal record on human rights and democratic processes. Abbas is now in the 19th year of a four-year term as president.
But most importantly, the PA is a terror entity. This cannot have escaped Blinken’s notice, and so I am moved to ask, how he could advance this group post October 7.
PA support for terrorism is not new. Abbas routinely incites, honors terrorists, and supports them and their families via the “pay for slay” program. But there is more.
A large percentage of those living in the PA areas was pleased with the Hamas massacre, which made them feel proud, they reported. For it turns out that the same inciteful, hateful curriculum that existed in the UNRWA schools in Gaza has been utilized in the PA schools, and in UNRWA summer camps in Judea & Samaria. The PA kids, as well, have been taught to hate Jews. To put the PA in charge in Gaza would mean a return to terrorism there.
~~~~~~~~~~
Blinken has been promoting a “new” “revitalized” PA, which will be equipped to take over in Gaza. But in great measure all this has meant is appointing new ministers of the same mindset as the former.
We haven’t heard about new textbooks that eliminate lessons of hate, or a pledge to cease incitement.
As to “pay for slay,” there has been talk about doing away with it, but I have read about a scheme to bury the money via social service programs. “Pay for slay” is so popular that Abbas would risk his life were he to truly cut it off.
And so, while we might understand that Blinken is working with a Western mentality that does not quite grasp the way the PA operates, we are still forced to ask if he could be as naïve as he sometimes appears to be. Or is he, on the contrary, simply willing to look away, even at risk to Israel, in order to help his boss realize his goals?
~~~~~~~~~~
Hopefully, when next I write I will look at our strengths during this time, when the world has gone mad.
~~~~~~~~~~
Keep praying to Heaven for Israel. Pray for the strength and wisdom of our leaders, for the safety of our soldiers, and for the rescue of our hostages. Pray with a heart filled with hope.
~~~~~~~~~~
©Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
