Friday, May 31, 2024

International Criminal Court runs wild, threatening Israel and anyone who criticizes the Court


by Douglas Murray

Back in April, I revealed here that the so-called International Criminal Court was aiming to prosecute an American ally. 

Sure enough, last month the absurd international body announced that it was prosecuting Benjamin Netanyahu, the democratically elected prime minister of Israel.

It was an obscene overreach by the court.  

The court has carried out no investigation and gathered no evidence. 

It has announced that it is seeking the arrest of Netanyahu because of things it thinks he might have done.

Back then, I said the “court” would come to regret it.  

America is not a signatory to the body. Thank goodness. 

And neither is Israel. 

Some more foolish allies — particularly in Europe — are. Some Democrats would love for America to join the court.  

But as the court´s opponents have always warned, the court is a corrupt and sectarian political organization that will in time come for Americans. 

Anyone who wants a Belgian or Congolese judge standing as judge and jury over American soldiers and politicians should love the institution.

Fortunately, the ICC´s recent overreach got a stern response from 12 US senators. 

They said they saw the warrant for the arrest of the Israeli leadership as “not only a threat to Israel´s sovereignty but to the sovereignty of the United States.” 

The senators’ letter went on, “The United States will not tolerate politicized attacks by the ICC on our allies. Target Israel and we will target you.”  

The letter spelled out that “targeting” would include ending all American support for the ICC plus the sanctioning and barring of ICC officials, employees, associates and their families from the United States.

Seems fair enough. 

And to anyone who doubts that the ICC is politicized, you might note that just last week, the court´s former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, praised the ICC warrants against Israel. 

He also described the leadership of Hamas — including those who organized the October 7 massacres — as “victims.” Charming.

This week, the court answered the US senators and the response is breathtaking.  

The prosecutor´s office replied to the senators in part,

“When individuals threaten to retaliate against the Court or Court personnel … such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Art. 70 of the Rome Statute.”

That’s what they call some cojones. 

The ICC is not just threatening US senators. It is saying they are already criminals in the eyes of the ICC prosecutor. Making the ICC effectively impossible to criticize. 

An almost divine institution. 

Criticize the ICC and you become a war criminal-in-waiting too, apparently.

Well, the puffed-up prosecutor might note several things. 

Not least that the USA is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. 

And so, threatening US senators with a statute that the US does not recognize is as scary as threatening someone with your imaginary black belt in karate.

But all this should be a reminder of a serious truth.

In recent decades, there have been repeated pushes to make America join the court. 

There has been much international criticism of this country for not coming under the court’s jurisdiction. 

But America was completely right not to do so.  

And the response of the prosecutor to the senators is a fine example of why.

The ICC’s current case is being backed up by such luminaries as Amal Clooney, who has a career-long dislike of the state of Israel, and whose involvement in the case against Israel reveals that hatred.

If Americans don´t think that senators, soldiers or anyone else should be threatened by Amal Clooney and a couple of rogue foreign judges, they are right. 

But our allies shouldn’t be subjected to this either.  

I hope Americans continue to tell these pompous political judges where to sling it.

Remember “Ultra MAGA”?  

That was the last term of insult for many Donald Trump voters.  

But the GOP and voters laughed it off and it never seemed to land.

Now the Democrats and their supporters seem to be worrying that they haven´t insulted many American voters enough. 

So they have come up with a new term of abuse. 

Watch out for it in the coming months: “Christian nationalists.” 

That is the new phrase they are trying out to denote the “extreme” in American politics.  

In January — after Mike Johnson became speaker of the House — the wrongly named “Congressional Freethought Caucus” issued a paper warning that Johnson was an example of “Christian Nationalism.”  

Which itself was (of course) a “hate group.”

Then in February, House Dems including Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal and Jerry Nadler sent Johnson a letter attacking “Christian Nationalists.”  

And from there, it spilled over to the Dems’ backing chorus in the media.  

Filmmaker and left-wing activist Rob Reiner claimed to Rolling Stone magazine that “Christian nationalists are fine with the idea that America should be a white, Christian nation” and said these people were “frightened” of “diversity.”

Recently the term has started to be used everywhere, especially about Trump, his allies and voters.  

In recent days, it has been used by Dems and alleged journalists about the people who have supported Trump in his trial at the Manhattan courthouse.

Personally, I’m not sure that this new verbal weapon has been thought through properly.  

Perhaps the Dems didn’t focus-group it enough outside their own bubble.

Because after all, while “nationalism” can go wrong, there is nothing as such wrong about “nationalism.”  

Lots of people in America are nationalists.  

The term itself just means somebody strongly connected to their own nation, who prioritizes their own nation over the nations of others.  

Its opposite, I suppose, is “internationalism” and I don´t think anyone would think it fair to say that “internationalists” are all extremists.

As for “Christian”: What the Dems seem to be forgetting is that “Christian” is not in fact a term of insult.  

There is nothing wrong with being a Christian.  

A fair number of Americans are.  

So if Trump’s opponents really want to get him, they might want to rethink this one.

Christians who like America still form a large chunk of the American electorate.  

Even if it isn’t a part of the electorate that certain Democrats mix in.


Anonymous said...

Today in our free world, everyone can be a believer or a non-believer. Everyone can believe, or not believe, in Krias Yam Suf (Jewish), or Yoshka walking on water (Christianity) or Muhamad elevating to the sky on a flying creature (Islam). Everyone, in our free world, can even criticize these beliefs without being prosecuted.
Well, if these despicable ICC clowns are now declaring that criticizing this "court" is an offense that will lead to prosecution, then the ICC is de facto a brutal violent faith/sect/terrorist group equal to wokism and Isis who also prosecute anyone who thinks differently than they do.

Garnel Ironheart said...

How is it different from defying the Sanhedrin?

Anonymous said...

How is it different from defying the Sanhedrin?

Putting everything else aside (and that is a LOT , way too much for a comment here) the Sanhedrin did not pay attention to, let alone threaten, it's non-Jewish critics. Or even to Jews who just ignored them. Were the ICC to limit it's tough stance to those who accept that they are subject to it's jurisdiction, it may or may not be a kangaroo court but it would not be the controversial group that it is.

Circle said...

Huh? How are they even remotely similar?

Anonymous said...

They had a universal mandate ,so yes they would.