Drawing in part on her own experiences, Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains the circumstances that led to the creation of institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose prosecutor last week requested arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and defense minister along with the senior leaders of Hamas. This move, she argues, stems from the simple fact that the court “is not fit for purpose,” and not intended to judge the activities of democratic countries like Israel with functioning judiciaries. What is happening now, she explains, is “a concerted effort to weaponize the court to target the Jewish state,” which originated with the Palestinian Authority itself and enjoyed the eager collaboration of the previous prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.

What are the likely results of this perversion of international law? Stephen Daisley explains:

Granting these warrants would require ICC signatory countries such as the UK to arrest the men if they set foot in their territory and hand them over. The likely effect of their arrest would be to cripple Israel’s war effort and throw the country into political chaos. . . . The applications relating to Hamas leaders are little more than fig leaves. Terrorist organizations can function pretty well despite arrest warrants. . . . Lawfare is a mere inconvenience to terrorists but to democrats it is a grave threat to their ability to lead their country.

Daisley calls for a counterattack:

Israel and its supporters should begin in earnest a campaign arguing for mass withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which would effectively abolish the ICC. The very notion would be scandalous to law professors, the human-rights industry, and progressives but the ICC has existed for just 22 years. . . . The ICC has contributed little to the upholding of the Fourth Geneva Convention in its two decades of existence and has evolved into a thoroughly political organization.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.