On January 22, the UN held its first-ever session devoted exclusively to the subject of anti-Semitism, a topic normally forced off the agenda by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Speakers—including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—unsurprisingly took the opportunity to make clear that criticism of Israel should never be confused with anti-Semitism. Anne Bayefsky examines this rhetoric, especially “the ignorant and twisted claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rightly or wrongly, exacerbates anti-Semitism”:

At the root of this assertion is the idea that the victims of anti-Semitism have a responsibility to ameliorate the pathology of their enemies.

The fact is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in the rejection of a Jewish state and the denial of Jewish self-determination. It is itself quintessential anti-Semitism. The conflict legitimizes anti-Semitism for anti-Semites. The solution to the conflict is to call the discrimination, demonization, and intended destruction of Israel on the battlefields of the United Nations and the Middle East, by its name—anti-Semitism. . . .

At the end of the anti-Semitism meeting—which was informal because formal agreement by the General Assembly to address the subject would have run smack into Arab and OIC intransigence—a joint statement was issued. The lack of formality meant it could not take the form of an official UN resolution. . . . Fifty states signed on to what could be called the New York declaration on anti-Semitism.

Tellingly, 90 percent of the signatories are fully free democracies (on the Freedom House scale), while only 45 percent of all UN member states are fully free.

One need not be an expert in international law to see the absurdity of the ICC prosecutor’s determination that the leaders of Hamas and the leaders of Israel are equally guilty of war crimes. It takes only a little more knowledge to understand that the court has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty. In a careful analysis, Avraham Russell Shalev outlines some of the many legal holes in this case, and observes that the problems are inherent in the court itself:

A review of the ICC’s relationship towards Israel over its two decades of existence demonstrates a fundamental bias and double standard toward the Jewish state. This bias is not a function of any specific prosecutor. Rather, it is an institutional feature, found even in the Rome Statute. . . . Israel initially refused to sign the Rome Statute as it became apparent that the Arab states had politicized the Rome Conference and introduced language that departed from existing international law specifically to criminalize Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Therefore, argues Shalev, Jerusalem should deal with the case against it not as a legal problem, to which it would respond by dispatching lawyers to make carefully reasoned arguments, but as a political and diplomatic one. More specifically, he contends that

collaboration with the ICC will not reduce the very high chances of arrest warrants being issued against Israeli officials, but will give those charges great weight and legitimacy when they come. Instead, Israel must adopt a policy of non-cooperation and even offense.

And what does a policy of offense entail?

Israel has repeatedly stated that it does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, any legal proceedings are completely illegitimate and as such, the various legal bodies—the attorney general, the Justice Ministry’s International Affairs Office, the Foreign Ministry’s legal advisors, and the Military Advocate General’s International Law Department—will no longer communicate with the ICC. [In addition], the Knesset must pass legislation modeled on the American Service-Member’s Protection Act. This legislation would bar any government agency from cooperating with the ICC without a government decision.

While Israel has never accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has willingly accepted it. The court can hardly turn around now and deny jurisdiction to avoid prosecuting Palestinian crimes. . . . Palestinian nationals, acting on behalf of Hamas, Fatah, and other terrorist organizations, and with no affiliation, have carried out serious war crimes against Israelis and Palestinians. Israel must publicly demand that the ICC issue indictments against them.