Why racist-Islamicized ICC’s ingrained bias ensures no fair ‘trials’ for Israel - the OIC lobby, Nawaf Salam, Karim Khan etc.


Platinum Member
Nov 13, 2023
Reminder, the notorious anti-Israel Arab Muslim hater (Nawaf Salam).has been elected to head the ICC only a few months ago...

Lebanese, anti-Israel judge Nawaf Salam elected new president of ICJ
7 Feb 2024 — Lebanese Judge Nawaf Salam was elected by his peers to be the new president of the International Court of Justice, where he will be expected..
Salam has a history of making anti-Israel statements and will now be presiding over the case launched by South Africa against Israel, in which it claims that the IDF is committing genocide in Gaza.

Anti-Israel statements by the new judge
In 2015, the now-president wrote, “Unhappy birthday to you, 48 years of occupation.” Months later, the Jewish News Syndicate reported that he wrote “Israel must stop violence and end occupation” and “Portraying the critics of Israel’s policies as antisemites is an attempt to intimidate and discredit them, which we reject.”


Why ICC’s ingrained bias ensures no fair ‘trials’ for Israel.
May 24, 2024 | Greg Rose

The request for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, made by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, is unsurprising, but not for the reasons many might think.

An integral purpose of the ICC’s political project has always been to delegitimise Israel. A target was drawn on Israel in the 1990s during the drafting of the Rome Statute for the ICC. The Organisation for Islamic Cooperation made this a condition of participation by Muslim countries. With 57 members, the OIC is the world’s biggest organisation by membership (other than the UN itself). Its participation was necessary for the global criminal law project to proceed.

The OIC required that the ICC definition of forced transfer of civilian populations be expanded as a war crime. New language introduced into the Rome Statute criminalised voluntary civilian migration of Jews into the areas of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria now called the West Bank. Although the ICC statute codified other existing war crimes, this became a new retrospective war crime invented in the Rome Statute.

This crime of allowing Jews to live voluntarily in the West Bank and Jerusalem has been under examination in the ICC since 2014. The previous chief prosecutor, in close liaison with Palestinian bodies and advisers from the OIC, geared the examination up to a prosecutorial investigation in 2020.

The ICC is an effective tool to delegitimise Israel only if actively used by ICC staff. This brings into focus the role and politics of its chief prosecutors. Karim Khan, the current chief prosecutor, had as his mentor and godfather Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Pakistan’s first foreign minister, who opposed the Jewish state’s establishment and existence throughout his career, including during his presidency of the UN General Assembly. They corresponded every week and stayed together when the elder Khan was in Britain. Khan describes the elder Khan’s influence as pivotal.

The previous chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, had been legal adviser and attorney-general in her home country, Gabon, under the dictatorship of Yahyah Jammeh, overseeing disappearances, political prosecutions and torture. Questionable dealings ran in the family, with her husband a bulk oil dealer in North Africa and her son a drug trafficker in the US.

Like dodgy police setting up false evidence for prosecution of a trafficker fallen from their favour, the ICC prosecutors set up dubious charges against Israel. These are based largely on evidence assembled by anti-Israel NGOs who solicit Palestinian testimony that is partial and prejudicial. The prosecutors then put forward questionable interpretations of international law rules that novelly apply only to Israel.

For instance, a charge issued by Khan focused on alleging insufficient aid flows into Gaza, arguing this amounts to the war crime of using starvation as a weapon of war. But the ICC prosecutor ignored several of the most salient facts, such as Hamas attacks on border crossings (thus interrupting aid flows), Hamas’s seizure of aid convoys and stealing of aid, and its booby-trapping homes and its destruction of Gaza infrastructure, particularly water pipelines and electricity transmission lines.

Khan contradicts the basic rules of international law of armed conflict allowing attacks on combatants by treating Hamas combatants embedded in urban areas as civilians. He also invents a perverse rule requiring the direct provision of humanitarian aid to the enemy in armed conflict.

The networks of such prejudicial influence extend well beyond the ICC into other legal institutions. Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan was also a president of the UN International Court of Justice, just like the current president of the ICJ, Nawaf Salam. Judge Salam was the Lebanese ambassador to the UN, where he was well known for constant invective against Israel. Unsurprisingly, he is not withdrawing or recusing himself in the current cases against Israel.

Egyptian and Jordanian judges in the ICJ were similarly pleased to execute judgments against Israel, despite their obvious bias from previous high-level national political roles.

Although a principle of the rule of law is that of the impartial judge, for which the disqualifying threshold is a reasonable apprehension of bias, this fundamental rule has no traction in the international justice system.ICC prosecutor Khan pretends Israel must be held to account equally with others. But the problem is not a failure to hold Israel to account, it is a more fundamental failure to treat Israel equally under law. Just as Jews were once excluded from polite society, and subjected to double standards, today Israel is treated as the Jew of the nations to be excluded from international society.

The international legal system is politicised. It is a function of the UN, which in turn is a political institution dominated by non-democratic states. They drive forward their own narrow anti-Semitic interests with the cynical support of hypocrites. Of course, the ICC charges are no surprise.
  • Funny
Reactions: cnm

The results of a vote on a resolution for the UN security council to reconsider and support the full membership of Palestine into the United Nations is displayed during a special session of the general assembly. Photograph: Charly Triballeau/AFP/Getty Images
Reminder, the notorious anti-Israel Arab Muslim hater (Nawaf Salam).has been elected to head the ICC only a few months ago...
The desperation is palpable.

For (143):

A: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan
B: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi
C: Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus
D: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic
E: East Timor, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia
F: France
G: Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana
H: Haiti, Honduras
I: Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast
J: Jamaica, Japan, Jordan
K: Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan
L: Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg
M: Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar
N: Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway
O: Oman
P: Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal
Q: Qatar
R: Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russia, Rwanda
S: Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria
T: Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Turkey
U: Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan
V: Vietnam
Y: Yemen
Z: Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against (9):

A: Argentina
C: Czech Republic
H: Hungary
I: Israel
M: Micronesia
N: Nauru
P: Palau, Papua New Guinea
U: United States

Abstained (25):

A: Albania, Austria
B: Bulgaria
C: Canada, Croatia
F: Fiji, Finland
G: Georgia, Germany
I: Italy
L: Latvia, Lithuania
M: Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco
N: Netherlands, North Macedonia
P: Paraguay
R: Republic of Moldova, Romania
S: Sweden, Switzeland
U: Ukraine, United Kingdom
V: Vanuatu
The desperation is palpable.

I'm glad you reveal that your favorite us Al jihadzeera.



Arden explained it very clearly.

"We don't have 50 plus Muslim countries that trade: 'We will vote for your guy if you vote for ours' ".

Thuis goes for voting Nawaf Salam as well as any other Islamic bigotry case.
Reacting to UN's ICJ ruling

  • Expert Analysis (on ): “This is another day of shame for the ICJ in its discriminatory treatment of Israel. Let’s not forget that this case was brought by South Africa — a country disgraced by a leadership that actively supports Hamas and that tars Israel with the defamatory accusation of ‘genocide.’ Israel, which has undertaken a major effort to move more than a million civilians out of Rafah to safety in advance of its operation to defeat Hamas in that city, will rightly disdain this ruling.”

  • Nawaf Salam ridiculed (including by former and current ambassadors to UN). Recalling his longtime Israel bashibg representing his Arab Republic of Lebanon: "Now he has a rope and talks high."
  • Noted personality: "Sits there a Lebanese and basically incites the entire world against Israel."
  • Israeli, international figures react to ‘antisemitic’ [UN's] ICJ ruling.
    National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, fellow members of Knesset, and Jewish organizations around the world expressed their shock and disappointment following the ICJ's ruling on Friday, demanding the IDF halt all operations in Rafah.
    Strategic affairs Minister, Ron Dermer, said, "That Jews are treated differently is not a new story but a more than 2,000 year old story that is based on ancient hatred. Every year, the Human Rights Council passes more resolutions against Israel than all the other countries in the world combined."
    "What the ICJ prosecutor has done will fuel the fires of antisemitism, which is raging across the world, because people will assume the charges carry weight. But the charges are totally false and the prosecutor didn’t even bother to learn the facts," Dermer stated.
    Dr. Charles Asher Small, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), issued the following statement in response to the ICJ ruling: "The ICJ's ruling is a stark reminder of how South Africa, which has become a hub for extremist activities across the African continent, continues to embrace antisemitic ideologies and support state-sponsored terror."
    Small continued to say, "Maintaining close ties with and acting on behalf of Iran, Qatar and Hamas, South Africa has become a leading voice for terror. By bringing this case against Israel and in favour of Hamas, South Africa further positions itself as a bad actor on the global stage. The time has come for the international community to recognize and address South Africa's alarming connections with terror-supporting states and entities."
    Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "Hamas is holding 125 hostages, presumably many in Rafah. The ICJ has just told Israel it’s not allowed to try to save them and must relinquish military leverage. This is not justice. This is a travesty of justice."
    International reactions:
    Senator Lindsey Graham also responded to the ICJ's ruling in a post on X, stating that "as far as [she is] concerned, the ICJ can go to hell."
    Graham further added that "so called international justice organizations" need to be opposed, and that "their anti-Israel bias is overwhelming." She further called the ICJ's ruling "ridiculous," stating that the ruling "will and should be ignored by Israel."
    Another politician from the US who responded on X to the ICJ's ruling was House Majority leader Steve Scalise. In his post, Scalise said that Israel's objective is to free the remainig hostages, and "destroy Hamas’ last stronghold. [Israel] must complete this mission."
    Scalise further stated, "The ICJ is blinded by anti-Israel bias. Biden must commit to vetoing any UN Security Council resolution that would enforce this outrageous decision."
    Britain's National Jewish Assembly condemned the ICJ's decision "vehemently," arguing that the decision was "born out of ignorance and devoid of any practical enforcement mechanism, only serves to embolden terrorist organisations and undermine the principles of international law and justice."
    “The ICJ’s ruling is not only a grave misstep but a direct affront to justice and morality,” said Gary Mond, Chairman of the NJA. “By undermining Israel’s right to defend its citizens against a genocidal terrorist organisation, the ICJ is not promoting peace but rather denying Israel’s ability to defend its people and territory. This decision must be condemned by all who value truth and justice.”
    The NJA further charged that the "ICJ’s ruling exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in Gaza" as "[h]alting military operations against Hamas will not lead to peace but will prolong the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians.
    "The true path to alleviating the humanitarian disaster in Gaza lies in dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure of terror and allowing genuine humanitarian aid to reach those in need without interference from terrorist activities."
  • WSJ: Is the International Court of Justice paying attention?
  • The families of the hostages demand that the government reject outright the decision in The Hague.
  • Lawyer: "With the reading of the orders, it should be mentioned again that the president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Nawaf Salam, is Lebanese and was even previously Lebanon's ambassador to the United Nations. In other words, the President of the High Court is a representative of a country that daily carries out military attacks from its soil against the State of Israel.
    A joke at the expense of the Jews."
  • Activist: The president of the court in The Hague, Nawaf Salam from Lebanon, a country that fires at us non-stop just because it feels like it, announced that "Israel must stop the operation in Rafah immediately and that allegations of genocide must be investigated." You can't make this shi-t up.

Some tweeted about ICJ - UN Court of Jihad...

Forum List