Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Jerusalem Post) Gerald M. Steinberg - In contrast to the legal and court systems of democratic countries, international law lacks basic political legitimacy. Instead, these institutions and individuals are political actors who use soft-power warfare to accompany and amplify kinetic conflict (bombs and rockets) through the facade of a legal process. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) (like its newer counterpart - the International Criminal Court) is linked to the UN framework, and its 15 standing "judges" are selected by the Security Council and General Assembly. The countries that are judged (in this case, Israel) are not duly represented in the process. There are no checks and balances, and judges are often political appointees with no real-world knowledge of the nature of warfare, deterrence, terrorism, or other issues on which they render pseudo-legal decisions. While legitimate national legal systems are based on equality before the law, the members of what Prof. David Bernstein has coined "the cult of international law" have favorite causes. Some are motivated by dangerous messianism, which envisions criminalizing warfare through imaginary global frameworks. Treaties and conventions create the illusion of rules under the rubrics of the so-called Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), but these are, at best, selectively enforceable. States that face legitimate threats are nevertheless said to be required to conform through a fiction known as "customary international law." It is important to expose the wider illusion of "international law." Institutions like the ICJ are built on the illusion of legality and justice. In practice, the results are often injustice and immorality. The writer, a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.2024-02-06 00:00:00Full Article
The International Court of Justice Is Not a Court
(Jerusalem Post) Gerald M. Steinberg - In contrast to the legal and court systems of democratic countries, international law lacks basic political legitimacy. Instead, these institutions and individuals are political actors who use soft-power warfare to accompany and amplify kinetic conflict (bombs and rockets) through the facade of a legal process. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) (like its newer counterpart - the International Criminal Court) is linked to the UN framework, and its 15 standing "judges" are selected by the Security Council and General Assembly. The countries that are judged (in this case, Israel) are not duly represented in the process. There are no checks and balances, and judges are often political appointees with no real-world knowledge of the nature of warfare, deterrence, terrorism, or other issues on which they render pseudo-legal decisions. While legitimate national legal systems are based on equality before the law, the members of what Prof. David Bernstein has coined "the cult of international law" have favorite causes. Some are motivated by dangerous messianism, which envisions criminalizing warfare through imaginary global frameworks. Treaties and conventions create the illusion of rules under the rubrics of the so-called Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), but these are, at best, selectively enforceable. States that face legitimate threats are nevertheless said to be required to conform through a fiction known as "customary international law." It is important to expose the wider illusion of "international law." Institutions like the ICJ are built on the illusion of legality and justice. In practice, the results are often injustice and immorality. The writer, a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.2024-02-06 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|