ISRAEL’S Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, a wanted criminal of the Gaza War, has criticized International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants as anti-Semitic. As for the ICC arrest warrants move, the UK’s Guardian observes, ’This unprecedented, necessary and impartial supranational attempt to prosecute democratically-elected western politicians accused of grievous wrongdoing is a test the international community dare not fail’’. Since the instrument of anti-Semitism undermines the core of international justice, the accusers of anti-Semitism like Netanyahu, must be justifiably seen as offenders of the rules-based international order because of their culpable indulgence in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Following the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (JDA) in 2008,many western countries have laws in place that classify anti-Semitic acts as criminal, reflecting international agreements and definitions, such as those provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It’s essential to demystify the Israeli myth of anti-Semitism. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (June, 2020), yet not approved by the UN, is being cleverly used by Netanyahu and his cabinet to defend political Zionism. In November 2022, 128 scholars specializing on anti-Semitism, Holocaust Studies and related fields warned, in an open letter: “Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponized definition of anti-Semitism.” Unmistakably, any western /Israeli move to use anti-Semitism against international norms is a lethal course for international legitimacy.
Thus, criticism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism suggests that it is sometimes misused to delegitimize legitimate political discourse, particularly regarding Israel, thus affecting legal perspectives and judgments related to human rights issues. In the western community, the conflict in Gaza is often viewed through the lens of international law in juxtaposition of Zionism; while true proponents of international law argue for the rights of the Palestinians against collective punishment.
Clearly, political Zionism, may conflict with the international legal standards, particularly regarding territorial claims and the treatment of civilians. Similarly, accusations of anti-Semitism can sometimes be closely intertwined with legal standards, particularly regarding international law. For instance, any acts considered anti-Semitic may be defined as criminal under specific legal frameworks, albeit justifiably examined, whether individuals or entities who accuse others of anti-Semitism themselves violate international law. The former Defence Minister Moshe Yaloon has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza. Additionally, The Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch en bloc accuse Netanyahu of using chemical weapons in Gaza and Lebanon.
Needless to say, an ecosystem of Zionist institutions and ideologues perpetuate Islamophobia to promote the policies and goals of Israel in its theft and occupation of Palestinian territory, including the dispossession and marginalization of the Palestinian people and denial of the rights of Palestinian refugees. The western approach —of portraying Muslims globally and domestically as agents of anti-Semitism—attempts to create a competition, or even a geopolitical zero-sum scenario between Muslims and Jews–rather than allowing principled opposition to both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia to uphold the norms of social justice.
Moreover, equating criticism of international law or human rights with that of anti-Semitism must be regarded unjustifiable as it can obscure the merit of legitimacy regarding efficacy of on human rights issues, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, any conflation —between the two concepts, anti-Semitism and the international legitimacy or liability—is a dangerous course to undo the justice with the victims of atrocities of war in Gaza. The European Union law, also known as European Community Law upholds the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights of December, 2000—enshrining a wide array of fundamental rights for EU citizens and residents.
Further, the EU’s Charter is legally binding and applies to the EU’s institutions. The community’s foundational values, including respect for human dignity and freedom, are specifically outlined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. In this context EU’s both Institutions—the European Commission (a supranational EU’s institution) and the European Parliament (an intergovernmental EU’s institution) have graver responsibilities to not only ensure the protection of the human rights inside the European community, but also beyond the European sphere. This distinction means that while European laws can specifically categorize and penalize anti-Semitic actions, international law tends to focus more broadly on human rights violations and the protection of individuals against discrimination and atrocities.
Nevertheless, the framing of Palestinians in Gaza by some Western media and political narratives as inherently violent can contribute to the Palestinians’ dehumanization. And yet a biased European trend is changing on the Gaza Issue, the Oxford Union has voted with an overwhelming majority accusing Israel as an apartheid state, committing genocide in Palestine. The EU Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen and Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, have publicly addressed the situation in Gaza, highlighting Israel’s actions as violations of international law. Foreign Policy Chief Borrell described the circumstances in Gaza as a blatant violation of human rights and stressed the urgent need for a ceasefire. The EU has called for immediate humanitarian access to aid while proposing a ban on imports from illegal settlements and a suspension of political dialogue with Israel.
Simply put, in the garb of being subjected to anti-Semitism, Israel‘s Jews have mischievously misguided the western public and the Governments. But the ICC’s current warrants move has exposed Israel’s real face before the international community. Still, Netanyahu’s continuing attempts to brutally kill more than 44000 Palestinians is a clear manifestation of his disdain for the rules-based international order—unanimously being defended by The Hague-based UN’s courts, International Court of justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Amid mounting threats and coercive measures to jeopardize the ICC’s role, its President Tomoco AKaneon Dec 2, reiterated that the Court will deliver its role vis-à-vis criminal justice, without any external interference.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. He also deals with the strategic issues.
