An international community that remained relatively silent in the face of real genocides has no standing to lecture the nation whose people suffered from the worst genocide in world history. Israel should continue to do what it is now doing: attacking Hamas targets, killing Hamas leaders, destroying Hamas tunnels, preventing Hamas rockets from striking Israeli civilians and winning the war against terrorism. It is Hamas who should be lectured about its multiple war crimes: using hospitals, schools and mosques to protect its fighters, rockets and tunnels. But the ICJ did not order Hamas to do or stop doing anything.

The ICJ’s decision was written by one of its real judges — an independent jurist who does not take orders from the nation that appointed her. Other judges on the court are simply pawns in their countries foreign policy. It’s surprising therefore that this compromise decision, despite its lecturing tone, was rendered by a court that includes a Hezbollah-appointed judge from Lebanon.

Previous decisions on the court have been entirely political and deserving of no respect. This decision deserves the respect of a thoughtful law review article written by a distinguished professor of international law, but because of the makeup of the so-called court, it does not deserve the respect accorded independent judicial authorities.

[Dersh is a lot nicer about this than I was. The truth is that the ICJ should have turned down the case, or have used it to look at Hamas’ grotesque and barbaric acts in furtherance of genocide, and the involvement of Iran in those acts. I reject on its face an attempt to prosecute the nation that suffered an actual genocidal attack and massive war crimes by terrorists who publicly proclaim their genocidal ambitions. If the ICJ isn’t going to address that with anything other than a foreword to yet another UN denunciation of Israel, then they’re worthless and undeserving of any consideration. — Ed]