Prof. Anne Bayefsky: 'ICJ has nothing to say about Israelis' human rights'

Professor Anne Bayefsky, President of Human Rights Voices and Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, told Arutz Sheva - Israel National News that the claim today (Wednesday) by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel did not provide sufficient evidence of UNRWA's connection to Hamas terrorists is part of the United Nations' efforts to cover up UNRWA's complicity with the Hamas terrorist organization.

"The ICJ is the Court of the UN. The UN’s anti-Israel and antisemitic biases are regurgitated by the ICJ. In this case, the ICJ openly admits that it relied for its so-called 'facts' on the UN. The judgment repeatedly reads 'according to the UN…' The 'question' before the Court came from the General Assembly, which first declared Israel was guilty and then 'asked' the Court to complete the predictable feedback loop. Which it did," Prof. Bayefsky said.

She accused the court of failing to properly investigate the issue of UNRWA's ties to Hamas by ignoring evidence that was not provided by the UN. "The UN said UNRWA was fine except for nine people who had 'possible involvement' in October 7th. The Court said yes, sir. Notwithstanding the massive amount of evidence of UNRWA’s ties to terrorism and Jew hatred. In a nutshell, we have here the following faux legal reasoning: the UN Court says the UN General Assembly says the UN agency UNRWA is 'indispensable' and the UN Court says the UN is right. And the Jewish state is wrong."

Prof. Bayefsky noted that the Court downplayed the repeated attempts to annihilate the State of Israel and the violence committed against Israeli civilians, including the starvation of the hostages who were held captive in Gaza for two years. "The umpteen wars and conflicts starting in 1948 - wherein Palestinian and other Arabs have sought to annihilate the Jewish state - are framed as some form of spontaneous combustion. Or as the Court says in regard to events between 2007 and the October 7th attack 'a series of hostilities took place.'"

She added: "There was lots of talk about the need to feed Palestinians. Deliberate Palestinian starvation of Israeli hostages was never mentioned. The Court had lots to say about Palestinian 'human rights' and nothing about Israeli 'human rights.' The Court said the Palestinian right of self-determination is central. The right of the Jewish people to self-determination is nowhere to be found. The Court found it perfectly proper and 'legal' to be asked by the General Assembly only 'What are the obligations of Israel…?' And abracadabra, the result was as one-sided as the political puppet masters desired."

"Of course, the real loser is the integrity and credibility of international law. Because it is painfully obvious this is the rule of the jungle. Shrouding the violent chaos Palestinians sow in a veil of legal ignorance is a win for the violent, not their victims." Prof. Bayefsky concluded.