On May 24, the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s highest court, issued another ruling critical of Israel. This time, the ICJ ruled that Israel “must immediately halt its military offensive” and other actions in Rafah, “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The ruling demands that Israel stop fighting but makes no similar demand of Hamas. Nor did the ICJ directive address the Israeli hostages in Rafah, except to note that their continued imprisonment in Gaza is “deeply troubling.”
Although ICJ rulings are binding, the tribunal has no means to enforce them. More importantly, it isn’t at all clear that the order will require Israel to do anything differently than it is already doing in Rafah, as the only prohibition is that Israel may not conduct military action designed to destroy the civilian population in Gaza, and no finding was made that such activity is ongoing.
The ICJ ruling capped a week of international targeting and increasing isolation of Israel.
Earlier last week, the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, a separate tribunal also located in The Hague, announced that he will seek to charge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, along with three Hamas leaders, with war crimes related to the Gaza operations and the Oct. 7 attack that provoked them.
Israeli leadership expressed outrage at the effort and was joined by President Joe Biden and leading members of Congress in criticizing the ICC effort and threatening sanctions against the ICC if the arrest warrants are pursued.
Should the arrest warrants be issued, the court’s 124 members (which include most Western powers and European countries, but not the U.S. and Israel) would have a treaty-bound obligation to apprehend the Israelis should they enter their countries.
That was followed by a coordinated announcement from Spain, Ireland and Norway that they will join 140 other members of the U.N. in formally “recognizing” a Palestinian state, even though no such entity exists. U.S. policy supports the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution, achieved through direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, not through unilateral recognition.
Israel’s growing isolation has two clear ramifications: It strengthens an embattled Netanyahu within Israel, supports his narrative that much of the world community has an anti-Israel bias and confirms his assertion that Israel can only depend on itself to defend against its enemies. It also highlights the singular role played by the United States as Israel’s only reliable friend, supporter, protector and patron.
That U.S. benevolence and support — which literally constitutes Israel’s lifeline — is not an entitlement. Continued full-throated U.S. support will require some changes in policy and approach of Israel’s government.
Israel needs the United States more than Israel needs Netanyahu. If Netanyahu is not able to do what is necessary to assure a continued embrace of Israel by the United States, he should step aside and make room for someone who will. It is that important.
