The president of the UN's highest court has a history of bias against Israel: 'Conflict of interest'

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is facing criticism for its Friday order to stop Israel's military offensive in Rafah and for the bias of its presiding judge, which is well-documented.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.'s highest legal body, is a tool of global antisemitism. The presiding judge in this case, ICJ President Nawaf Salam, is from Lebanon, a country that does not recognize Israel's right to exist. In his spare time, he has tweeted anti-Israel sentiments, such as a meme that reads 'unhappy birthday to you: 48 years of occupation.' Salam is a politician, a rabid anti-Israel politician, who is dressed up by the U.N. as a judge. Anne Bayefsky, the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, made this statement to Planet Chronicle Digital.

Bayefsky, a legal expert on the U.N. who oversees Human Rights Voices, stated, "Where did the kangaroo Court obtain its 'facts' in this case? The United Nations, of course, an institution whose highest bodies - the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Human Rights Council - have never condemned Hamas terrorists and their October 7 atrocities."

In a February Wall Street Journal opinion article, Orde Kittrie, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, contended that Judge Salam's political activism in Lebanon influenced his bias against Israel and violated the ICJ's rules. Kittrie pointed out that the ICJ's conflict-of-interest rules state that no judge "may exercise any political or administrative function, or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature."

As a law professor at Arizona State University, Kittrie pointed out that the ICJ charter prohibits jurists from participating in a case in which they have previously acted as an advocate or in any other capacity.

Salam, who ran for prime minister of Lebanon in the last two elections, was Lebanon's U.N. ambassador from 2007 to 2017. As Kittrie wrote, Salam was a legal expert who routinely "denounced and cast votes against Israel's military conduct and presence in the disputed territories."

In 2015, Salam wrote on social media that criticizing and condemning Israel is not due to the Jewish character of its majority population, and in another post, Salam rejected the idea of portraying Israel's critics as antisemites as an attempt to intimidate and discredit them.

In the same year, JNS reported that he tweeted about Palestine's full membership in the UN and ending Israel's occupation being long overdue.

For over a decade, Lebanon has been under the de-facto control of the U.S.-designated terrorist organization, Hezbollah, and has contributed to the conflict with Israel by firing multiple missiles. Hezbollah, backed by Iran, aims to destroy the Jewish state, like Hamas.

The ICJ did not respond to Planet Chronicle Digital's request for a comment.

The Israeli government announced that it will proceed with its military campaign to eliminate four Hamas battalions in Rafah, despite the ICJ's order lacking enforcement.

On Friday, Israeli government spokesperson Avi Hyman stated that no power on earth can prevent Israel from safeguarding its citizens and pursuing Hamas in Gaza. He emphasized that Israel will annihilate Hamas, restore tranquility and security to both Israeli and Gazan citizens, and cannot tolerate a genocidal terrorist organization on its southern border.

The Hamas group, which is made up of murderers and rapists, responded to Friday's ruling by welcoming the decision of the World Court and referring to the Jewish state as their "Zionist enemy" that they intend to annihilate. This shows that the supporters of the decision, which is meant to be anti-genocide, are actually those who are openly committed to genocide. The U.N. court, which made the ruling, has friends in low places.

In his reading of the ruling, Salam stated that Israel must immediately cease its military operations in the Rafah Governorate to prevent the destruction of the Palestinian group in Gaza.

Over 1,200 people were killed by Hamas in southern Israel on Oct. 7, while the jihadi terrorist movement kidnapped over 250 people, with 125 hostages still being held captive in Rafah.

The majority decision of the ICJ has been rejected by some of the judges and legal experts. Four of the 15 ICJ justices believe that the clause cited by Salam in his oral presentation does not require Israel to immediately end its military campaign in Rafah. According to this interpretation, Israel is only required to stop its military operations if they could cause physical destruction to the whole or part of the state.

Julia Sebutinde, the ICJ Vice President from Uganda, who voted against all decisions opposed to Israel, wrote that the measure does not completely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only restricts Israel's offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention.

The directive may be misinterpreted as requiring a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah, which would limit Israel's ability to achieve its military objectives while allowing Hamas to continue attacking without retaliation.

The Ugandan jurist voted against all restrictions ordered by the ICJ in the January ruling that Israel take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza.

As an ad-hoc judge on the ICJ bench, Aharon Barak, former Israeli Supreme Court president, stated in his dissenting opinion that the majority view demands Israel to cease its military operations in the Rafah Governorate only to the extent required to fulfill its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Barak stated that Israel is allowed to carry out its military operation in the Rafah Governorate as long as it adheres to its obligations under the Genocide Convention. He emphasized that the measure is a qualified one that safeguards Israel's right to defend itself and its citizens, prevent and repel threats and attacks by Hamas, and free hostages.