In Israel's
Attempt to Deflect ICC Prosecutor, It Admitted to the
OccupationBy Noa Landau
December 21, 2019 "Information
Clearing House" - In a contemporary take on
the historic declaration "Um-Shmum" – a Hebrew
expression of disdain for the United Nations attributed
to David Ben-Gurion – Israel has been cooking up a
follow-up that could be dubbed "Hague-Shmague." Hague-Shmague
posits that the institution of international law are no
more than a redundant nuisance, biased and even
anti-Semitic, and should have no clout over the lives of
Israelis.
This
derogatory thesis has been adopted by the State of
Israel since its inception, even though it was
international institutions that led to its founding.
Such was the sentiment when Ben-Gurion suggested that
Israel conquer the Gaza Strip and coined his dismissive
idiom, and such is the sentiment today when Israelis
hear that the prosecutor at the International Criminal
Court at The Hague believes "there is reasonable basis"
to open an
investigation into war crimes
in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem. Oh
well, many Israelis say, "Hague-Shmague." And what else
would you expect from a world in which the institutions
of international law have been defanged and the
president of the United States himself flouts it almost
as much as he tweets?
Only the peculiar panic that suddenly gripped Israeli
officials this Friday hinted at the fact that something
unprecedented and salient did in fact happen.
In a
hurried, last-minute briefing to the press, likely
designed to preempt the ICC prosecutor's statement, the
Deputy Attorney General for International Affairs and
the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser laid down the
attorney general's famous doctrine: The
Hague has no authority
to deliberate over the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is
not a plea of innocence, but an assertion that "they
have no power here."
Intriguing. But some arguments were even more
intriguing, chief among them the claim that "The
Palestinians, by appealing to the court, seek to breach
the established framework between the two parties and
push the court to decide on political questions which
should be settled in negotiations and not in
criminal-judicial proceedings."
Or as the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser told
reporters: "This is the criminalization of the conflict
which could only lead to more polarization between the
parties, instead of a diplomatic process which brings
them together."
Of which
imaginary diplomatic process do Israel's legal defenders
speak? Where exactly is it taking place? It is Israel's
long
opposition to a diplomatic process
(no less than the Palestinians') that led to the ICC to
begin with. Left with few other options, international
institutions are the only recourse Palestinians have to
further their struggle for a state.