WSJ Editorial Criticizes ICJ Ruling Against Israel

The Wall Street Journal has sharply criticized the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its recent ruling against Israel, describing it as "another anti-Israel ruling in The Hague." The editorial, published on May 24, condemns the ICJ's demand for Israel to cease its military operations in Rafah, Gaza, and accuses the court of bias.

Last Friday, the ICJ ruled that Israel "must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, 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 WSJ, however, contends that Israel's only target in Rafah is Hamas, which is not a party to the ICJ trial as a non-member state. The editorial highlights the double standards in the ruling, noting that the ICJ demands nothing of Hamas while expecting Israel to unilaterally stop its efforts in the terrorists' stronghold.

The WSJ editorial points out that Israel's evacuation of approximately one million Gazans from Rafah was conducted "expertly" and underscores Israel's efforts to rescue hostages taken by Hamas. "The ICJ knows that Hamas refuses to release them," the editorial states, criticizing the court for effectively asking Israel to abandon its efforts to free the hostages.

The ruling's Clause 56 acknowledges the plight of the hostages but falls short of directly addressing Hamas' role in their capture. The court called for their immediate and unconditional release but did not explicitly demand Hamas comply, focusing instead on halting Israeli operations.

On May 17, the bodies of hostages Shani Louk, Amit Buskila, and Itshak Gelernter were discovered by the IDF in Rafah and returned to Israel, underscoring the urgent need for continued military efforts in the area.

National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi reiterated Israel's stance, stating, “What they are asking us, is not to commit genocide in Rafah. We did not commit genocide and we will not commit genocide.” He emphasized Israel's right to self-defense under international law, noting that the ICJ's ruling does not prevent Israel from continuing its defense operations.

The WSJ editorial also criticized the ICJ's demand for Israel to reopen the Rafah crossing, highlighting that the decision largely depends on Egypt. The editorial questioned why the ICJ blamed Israel when the crossing’s status is influenced by Egyptian policies.

Dissent within the ICJ was also noted, with Justice Julia Sebutinde of Uganda arguing that there are no indicators of genocidal intent by Israel. She suggested that South Africa, which brought the case, had either misinterpreted or misrepresented statements related to Israel's actions.

The WSJ concluded that the ICJ's ruling is transparently biased, accusing the court's judges, including Nawaf Salam, of long-standing anti-Israel sentiments. “The transparent nature of the ICJ ruling has the benefit of making it easier to dismiss,” the editorial stated, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's sentiments that only the defeat of Hamas in Rafah can bring peace to Gaza.

Stay informed about international rulings and their impacts by sharing this article or subscribing to our newsletter.