Critics say ICC hijacked by radical anti-U.S., anti-Israel groups
The International Criminal Court is working alongside several organizations and individuals tied to terrorism as it seeks to prosecute American and Israeli personnel for war crimes, according to a new report out of Israel. The findings call into question the court’s integrity at a time when it is facing international backlash over its pursuit of politically motivated cases.
The report—from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), an Israel-based research group headed by a former adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—concludes that under the leadership of Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the ICC collaborated with terror-tied groups to pursue charges against American and Israeli military officials it claims are guilty of committing war crimes against civilians, including in Afghanistan and Palestinian territories. The cases originated with complaints filed to the court by two nonprofit advocacy groups with ties to terrorism.
In its report, “How the ICC Has Been Weaponized Against the U.S. and Israel,” the JCPA details how two international nonprofit groups hijacked the ICC to ensure it targets the United States and Israel for prosecution on charges that both nations have called unwarranted. Researchers uncovered new information indicating that “radical NGOs, some of which are affiliated with terror organizations, collaborated in promoting the complaints against the U.S. and Israel.”
The findings are likely to stoke already mounting frustrations with the court in Congress and the Trump administration, which has repeatedly condemned the ICC’s pursuit of charges against American military personnel. The United States is not a party to the court and has vowed to defend itself against any legal action. Israel has adopted a similar stance on the court, which has repeatedly attempted to single out Jews for prosecution related to the country’s efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism.
“Any attempt by a renegade ICC to investigate U.S. personnel is illegitimate and unjustified,” State Department Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus told the Washington Free Beacon.
The ICC’s case against the United States originated in complaints issued by two nonprofit advocacy groups—the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Both groups “are closely related to the Palestinian NGOs that brought the complaint against Israel to the ICC,” according to the JCPA’s report.
The NGOs—Al-Haq, Al-Dameer, Al Mezan, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)—”maintain strong ties to the designated terror organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP),” according to a 2019 Israeli government investigation.
Further, the NGOs are tied to a network of anti-Israel activists who use the human rights community to push radical agendas at a range of international institutions, including the United Nations.
The organizations “are far from being human rights organizations as they have falsely represented themselves, as they maintain close ties to terror organizations designated by U.S. State Department and the European Union,” according to the JCPA.
The executive director of the Al-Haq group, Shawan Jabarin, “is a former senior operative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and has served multiple prison sentences for his terror-affiliated activity,” the report discloses. Major U.S. credit card companies shut down donations to Al-Haq due to its terrorism ties. Jabarin also serves as the secretary general for FIDH, the umbrella group helping the ICC pursue a case against America.
Al-Haq, the PCHR, and Al Mezan are all members of FIDH.
“Palestinian NGOs have similarly maintained close ties to the PFLP, Hamas, and other Palestinian terror groups,” according to the JCPA. “They have been active in working against U.S. policy in the Middle East, condemning the U.S. Administration’s declarations regarding the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, and the Jordan Valley.”
ICC chief prosecutor Bensouda has close ties with FIDH, the JCPA found. She visited FIDH’s Paris headquarters in 2015 and participated in the group’s 40th congress in 2019. FIDH says on its website that it has a “close relationship” with the ICC.
This has raised questions about Bensouda’s impartiality when it comes to cases that FIDH and its affiliates have promoted.
“The particularly close relationships between the accusing organizations in both cases reveal the politicized nature of these complaints,” according to the JCPA. “Moreover, the overlapping connections between the Palestinian NGOs and terror groups and between Bensouda and FIDH raise serious questions about objectivity and intent.”
by Brett Schaefer • The Daily Signal
National security adviser John Bolton didn’t mince words in a speech on Monday as he outlined U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court.
In that speech, before the Federalist Society, Bolton said:
The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens, and those of our allies, from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.
We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.
Bolton’s announcement pre-emptively confronted the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation of U.S. military and government officials.
The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, announced on Nov. 3 that she had formally requested authorization from the court’s Pre-Trial Chamber to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Afghanistan since May 2003. Continue reading
في اصدار جديد له, العدالة المنفية, كتب الكاتب والمحلل البريطاني الدكتور ديفد هويل عن ما يسمي بمحكمة الجنايات الدولية التي تتمتع بحصانة استثنائية من قبل الدول الاروبية. في هذه السلسلة, سنستعرض اجزاء مهمة من هذا الكتاب بالاشارة الي بعض التحليلات و الحقائق التي تتعلق بهذه المؤسسة التي يعتقد الكثيريون أنها مؤسسة فاسدة وغير عادلة.
ويقول الكاتب إن محكمة الجنايات الدولية يمكن وصفها بمعتقل غوانتنامو الاوروبي للأفارقة. كما وصف الكوادرالتي تقوم بتعيين القضاة بعدم الكفاءة و القدرة علي تطبيق العدل. ويصف ما قاله أحد الحكام الافارقة بأن هذه المحكمة وضعت لمعاقبة الدول الافريقية والدول الفقيرة. سنقوم بتناول هذه القضايا في الايام القادمة.
Here are five can’t-miss reports and opinion pieces for those keeping tabs on the efforts and excesses of the International Criminal Court…
First, citing the botched pursuits of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Sudanese President Omar Bashir, Assistant Director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center Joshua Meservey presents an excellent breakdown of the Court’s recent African misadventures. And while he endorses the ICC mission in general terms, Meservey is nevertheless is scathing in his summation of its current iteration:
By Shawn Macomber
Over at The Washington Times this weekend Center for Freedom and Prosperity President Andrew F. Quinlan put together a fantastic, hard-hitting, and sobering brief against the International Criminal Court in which he argues, “In Carl von Clausewitz’s classic On War, he famously declared, ‘War is politics by other means.’ But in the modern age, it’s become increasingly clear that international law is often just war by other means.”
By Shawn Macomber
In the wake of the International Criminal Court’s controversial decision to allow Palestine join its ranks, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman vowed to lobby nations friendly to the Jewish state to cut funding to the aspiring transnational entity.
That effort, it appears, is essentially DOA, but the threat such a move, if realized, poses to the Court is hardly trivial, as the following excerpts from a Reuters report makes clear:
By Shawn Macomber
So the International Criminal Court has allowed the amorphous, sort-of-a-State of Palestine join its ranks, thereby establishing a pretext for an investigation into possible war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Forces during the Gaza conflict last summer, and Alan Dershowitz is roughly as happy about the decision as one would expect a man who counts titles such as The Case for Israel (2004), The Case Against Israel’s Enemies (2008), and a host of other unambiguously pro-Israel tomes to be.
First the celebrated author, civil-liberties lawyer, and retired Harvard Law professor went on Newsmax TV to declare the decision would “mark the death of the ICC” — wishful thinking at best, alas — and then followed that broadside up a few days later with a pugilistic Jerusalem Post op-ed in which he argued the ICC had sacrificed legitimacy for too-easy politicized grandstanding for the following reasons: