A case in point. Did anyone notice that we just had an election here in the U.S? I wonder how many people voted for President Trump specifically because of all of the lawfare that he has had to tolerate over the last three years. Love him or hate him, like him or not, the man has been getting the shaft for a long time. "Regular folks" saw that and thought, "If 'they' can do that to him, what sort of chance do I have in the so-called courts of justice?" And now, the people have resoundingly spoken. Do you think his stature and cred have gotten bigger because of it? We will see. By the way, the name of the the ICC should be changed to the International Cangeroo (sic) Court."
Thank you for a very nuanced and clear explanation of lawfare and how to evaluate it. Clearly Israel’s enemies are using the ICC and ICJ cases as part of an overall political strategy to delegitimize, stigmatize, and weaken Israel. But as you said, that of course doesn’t mean that the cases are necessarily phony or can be dismissed out of hand. I am skeptical that the timing of today’s ICC announcement was related to the Security Council vote. The ICC panel of judges has been deliberating on this issue for around 6 months, and around a month or so ago one of the judges was replaced for health reasons. They have been under intense pressure to issue a ruling for a long time, and there have been plenty of other political developments during the last half year that could have triggered their ruling if that had been their goal. Absent evidence to the contrary, I think the most likely explanation is that today is just when they finally finished deciding the immense number of difficult questions this case involved and getting the new judge up to speed.
A fascinating concept has been added to my emerging political awareness, Joshua. It was always there in the background, but you have, yet again, focused the lens to create a much sharper image.
This is so true! These institutions are riddled with corruption and anti semitism! They are out of control and have no checks or balances on them. What is obvious is, that in their case, lawfare is an ass!
Here's the problem: When it's against a member of your "team", it's lawfare. When it's against a member of the opposition, it's jurisprudence. For example, there are some Title VI cases now making their way through the courts, and despite some people claiming it's Jewish Lawfare, I couldn't be happier. To me, the antisemites are getting a tiny amount of what they deserve.
What a fantastic essay of how lawfare has been and is still being used. The ICC, the UN and others all breathing their last dragon's fire for the next 8 weeks while they still can. As you say, Joshua, what this lawfare does is only strengthen Israel's resolve to be stronger than ever. These clowns don't seem to get it, but they keep trying. Someone needs to bring charges against the chief prosecutor for sexual misconduct allegations involving "coercing a female aide into a sexual relationship against her will and groping her," and there is no precedent in international law for prosecuting apartheid. It seems like the ICC should clean their own house first. You really made your strong point with, "It is less about seeking justice and more about weaponizing legal mechanisms to suppress, intimidate, or delegitimize an opponent." Bravo!
"Ironically, the lawfare framing has not weakened Netanyahu; it has, in many ways, fortified him. His legal woes have become a rallying cry for his supporters, consolidating his political base and allowing him to position himself as a defender of democracy under siege. While the cases against Netanyahu may aim to hold him accountable, they have also illustrated the double-edged nature of lawfare: the very act of seeking to diminish his influence has inadvertently strengthened his hold on power".
Perhaps to keep the article away from TLDR, it omits discussion of the legal cases against Trump.
It also omits why Assange wasn't prosecuted in the USA and why Biden came to his decision not to: no court in the USA would have given him a fair trial, and the optics of one would have portrayed America as a tyrannical, vindictive state. The same may be so in Israel v Netanyahu.
Where a fair trial is not possible, so the body politic needs to take a look not just at its optics, but also at its health. If a fair trial becomes the exception rather than the norm, citizens within that lawless jurisdiction should fear for their own health and wellbeing.
And that is why, if a court can be suitably impartial and follow due process, then cases need to be heard: evidence can be forensically cross-examined, and thus post-truth, fake news, and hearsay banished, giving way to burden of proof and presentation of the facts. The ICJ, for example, ruled against South Africa, concluding there had been no genocide in Gaza but that Israel must take action to prevent it, while the ICC issuing its arrest warrant on Netanyahu might well find that war crimes were committed there.
A case in point. Did anyone notice that we just had an election here in the U.S? I wonder how many people voted for President Trump specifically because of all of the lawfare that he has had to tolerate over the last three years. Love him or hate him, like him or not, the man has been getting the shaft for a long time. "Regular folks" saw that and thought, "If 'they' can do that to him, what sort of chance do I have in the so-called courts of justice?" And now, the people have resoundingly spoken. Do you think his stature and cred have gotten bigger because of it? We will see. By the way, the name of the the ICC should be changed to the International Cangeroo (sic) Court."
I’m glad you were able to make this important inference.
Thank you for a very nuanced and clear explanation of lawfare and how to evaluate it. Clearly Israel’s enemies are using the ICC and ICJ cases as part of an overall political strategy to delegitimize, stigmatize, and weaken Israel. But as you said, that of course doesn’t mean that the cases are necessarily phony or can be dismissed out of hand. I am skeptical that the timing of today’s ICC announcement was related to the Security Council vote. The ICC panel of judges has been deliberating on this issue for around 6 months, and around a month or so ago one of the judges was replaced for health reasons. They have been under intense pressure to issue a ruling for a long time, and there have been plenty of other political developments during the last half year that could have triggered their ruling if that had been their goal. Absent evidence to the contrary, I think the most likely explanation is that today is just when they finally finished deciding the immense number of difficult questions this case involved and getting the new judge up to speed.
A fascinating concept has been added to my emerging political awareness, Joshua. It was always there in the background, but you have, yet again, focused the lens to create a much sharper image.
This is so true! These institutions are riddled with corruption and anti semitism! They are out of control and have no checks or balances on them. What is obvious is, that in their case, lawfare is an ass!
Here's the problem: When it's against a member of your "team", it's lawfare. When it's against a member of the opposition, it's jurisprudence. For example, there are some Title VI cases now making their way through the courts, and despite some people claiming it's Jewish Lawfare, I couldn't be happier. To me, the antisemites are getting a tiny amount of what they deserve.
Not necessarily. It can be lawfare if it’s lawfare, not because it’s someone’s team.
Another excellent insightful article. Could not agree more. Should be read in law schools!!
What a fantastic essay of how lawfare has been and is still being used. The ICC, the UN and others all breathing their last dragon's fire for the next 8 weeks while they still can. As you say, Joshua, what this lawfare does is only strengthen Israel's resolve to be stronger than ever. These clowns don't seem to get it, but they keep trying. Someone needs to bring charges against the chief prosecutor for sexual misconduct allegations involving "coercing a female aide into a sexual relationship against her will and groping her," and there is no precedent in international law for prosecuting apartheid. It seems like the ICC should clean their own house first. You really made your strong point with, "It is less about seeking justice and more about weaponizing legal mechanisms to suppress, intimidate, or delegitimize an opponent." Bravo!
Exactly what happened with Trump.
It is unconscionable that the left-wing in Israel is trying to take down Bibi during wartime.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Ironically, the lawfare framing has not weakened Netanyahu; it has, in many ways, fortified him. His legal woes have become a rallying cry for his supporters, consolidating his political base and allowing him to position himself as a defender of democracy under siege. While the cases against Netanyahu may aim to hold him accountable, they have also illustrated the double-edged nature of lawfare: the very act of seeking to diminish his influence has inadvertently strengthened his hold on power".
No Justice, No Peace?
Sure, I'm good.
Let' see how you feel about that after 4 years from the other side!
Apologies for the shameless plug...
https://open.substack.com/pub/kfitzat/p/the-dangers-of-absolute-good-the?
Excellent piece.
Perhaps to keep the article away from TLDR, it omits discussion of the legal cases against Trump.
It also omits why Assange wasn't prosecuted in the USA and why Biden came to his decision not to: no court in the USA would have given him a fair trial, and the optics of one would have portrayed America as a tyrannical, vindictive state. The same may be so in Israel v Netanyahu.
Where a fair trial is not possible, so the body politic needs to take a look not just at its optics, but also at its health. If a fair trial becomes the exception rather than the norm, citizens within that lawless jurisdiction should fear for their own health and wellbeing.
And that is why, if a court can be suitably impartial and follow due process, then cases need to be heard: evidence can be forensically cross-examined, and thus post-truth, fake news, and hearsay banished, giving way to burden of proof and presentation of the facts. The ICJ, for example, ruled against South Africa, concluding there had been no genocide in Gaza but that Israel must take action to prevent it, while the ICC issuing its arrest warrant on Netanyahu might well find that war crimes were committed there.
As for motives, listen if you can access it, to the grilling the BBC's Nick Robinson gave the ICC's prosecutor - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0022s8s
If you can't access it, let me know here, and I'll sit down, take notes, and report them back here.
Thank you. I learned something new about geopolitics. Great article and well thought out.