25 Fall 2023 than two months prior to the Hamas massacre, several countries and organizations had either submitted or filed comments regarding the referred question to the Peace Palace. On behalf of B’nai B’rith International, B’nai Brith Canada, the B’nai B’rith World Center-Jerusalem, and the B’nai B’rith Office of United Nations Affairs (collectively “B’nai B’rith”), the authors of this article along with David Matas, Esq., Senior Legal Counsel to B’nai B’rith Canada, submitted a brief to the ICJ, wherein it is argued why the ICJ should reject the UN’s request for an Advisory Opinion. B’nai B’rith is recognized as the global voice of the Jewish community and has served in that role as an ECOSOC-accredited non-governmental organization (NGO) since 1947. As a non-state filer, B’nai B’rith’s submission can be found in the Peace Palace library pursuant to The International Court of Justice Practice Direction XII.4 In its submission, B’nai Brith argued that the ICJ should not issue an Advisory Opinion addressing the questions posed to it because of the unproven premises upon which the questions were constructed, the potential negative impact an Advisory Opinion could have on the ArabIsraeli “peace process,” and the demonstrable problems that have already resulted from the ICJ’s 2004 Advisory Opinion. In 2004, the ICJ issued an Advisory Opinion condemning Israel for building a security barrier like the one that Hamas destroyed along the Israel-Gaza border. Among the opinion’s flaws, some of which B’nai B’rith highlighted in our recent submission, “the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.”5 Simply put, it was the ICJ’s view in 2004 that Israel had no right to build a structure to prevent the documented horrific scenes that would later unfold in and upon Israel. It would shock the conscience of any peace-loving person for the ICJ to double down on this view, which would be the effective result of issuing a wrong-headed similar or supplemental Advisory Opinion6 in the wake of the irrefutable Hamas massacre. States (but not NGOs) were allowed to submit additional rebuttal reports by October 25, 2023. As they have not been published on the ICJ website, it is unknown at the time of this writing (December 2023) whether any of the fourteen rebuttal reports discussed the Hamas massacre or argued that the ICJ should feel compelled in the context of the events of October 7 to fully reject the UNGA’s earlier and pending request for an Advisory Opinion. The Hamas-Led Massacre Early in the morning of October 7, the Hamas terrorist organization initiated a multipronged attack against Israel. Most notably, Hamas, which manipulatively presents itself to the world as the “political party” that leads the population of Gaza, having ousted in 2007 both Fatah and the Palestinian Authority from their quasigovernmental role over Gaza, from which Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government unilaterally withdrew in 2005: (1) Launched thousands of missiles towards indiscriminate targets throughout central and southern Israel, sparking terror and destruction in cities throughout the country; (2) Broke through the Gaza-Israel border fence, using motorized hang gliders, explosives and bulldozers, allowing armed terrorists on motorbikes and fourwheel drive vehicles to enter Israel’s territory from Gaza; (3) Fired on a nearby festival attended by 3,500 young Israelis who came together for a joyous night of music; (4) Murdered at least 260 of those festival attendees, injured others, and kidnapped hostages to Gaza; (5) Ran rampant through Israel, brutally killing, beheading, raping, burning, injuring, and capturing thousands of innocent women, men, and children of all ages; and (6) Used social and other media to broadcast video of their horrendous acts for the world to see. It is reported that Hamas was able to lure Israelis into a false sense of security by convincing Israel that the terrorist organization cared more about internal economic stability for its population than engaging in further 4. Written Statement Submission by B’nai B’rith International et al., Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Case No. 2023/7 (Int’l Ct. of Justice, July 21, 2023), available at https://www.bnaibrith. org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BBI-ICJ-Brief-7.21.2023. pdf (“B’nai B’rith Brief”). 5. 2004 Advisory Opinion at 142. 6. Press Release No. 2023/65, “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” (Int’l Ct. of Justice, Nov. 14, 2023), available at https://www.icj-cij. org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20231114pre-01-00-en.pdf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=