The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, has condemned the murder of a Palestinian child in the West Bank and offered his condolences to the victim’s family members. In his statement, he declared that the “absence of a political process and Israel’s illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses, have given rise to violent extremism on both sides.” Comparing this statement with Ban’s condemnations of other terrorist attacks during his tenure, Alan Baker notes a pattern:

[An] evidently standard pattern of [exists for the] UN secretary-general’s condemnations . . . together with expressions of condolence . . . to the government and people of the particular state where the act of terror occurred, and to the families of the victims, [followed by] calls for investigation. [This formula] has been consistently used as a matter of course following terrorist atrocities throughout the world. However, none of these condemnations has presumed to attach blame or to arbitrarily proffer political value judgments. . . .

[Furthermore, the] brutal massacre of 200 civilians by Islamic State terrorists in a Syrian border town [in] June 2015 did not merit any condemnation or condolence message by the secretary-general and Security Council. The deaths of at least 30 people in a suicide bombing in the same border region of Turkey did not merit a condemnation, either. . . .

After analyzing the secretary-general’s reactions, or lack thereof, to acts of terror, one realizes that, as in most issues regarding Israel, the classical UN double standard would appear to be universally applied, whatever the circumstances. . . . One may indeed ask if this is a deliberate mode of behavior on the part of the secretary- general and his staff, or perhaps merely inadvertently a singling-out of Israel [by force of habit].

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.