The Islamization of International Law

The ‘genocide’ case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel lifts the veil over a process that has been affecting the entire corpus of international law – already far exceeding its roots in the Israeli-Jihadi conflict. This case is not about Israel, it is about the future of international law and the slow creep of sharia infecting Western law.

Legendary Human Rights Scholar DAVID LITTMAN VIDEO INTERVIEW: OVERWHELMING ISLAMISATION OF THE UN

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born after the ashes of World War II and established to ensure that a Holocaust would never happen again.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.

The introduction and slow creep of Islamic law really began with the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), a declaration of the Muslim member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted in Cairo, Egypt, on 5 August 1990, (Conference of Foreign Ministers, 9–14 Muharram 1411H in the Islamic calendar^[2]) which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic sharia as its sole source.

This declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic response to the United Nations‘s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948.

It should never have been adopted by a civilized world body. The legendary human rights scholar David Littman spent the better part of his prestigious career warning of its peril to the West and freedom loving peoples the world over.

He spent decades working at the UN trying to get people to pay attention to this genocidal covenant – Hamas Charter. To his enormous credit. The charter came out Hamas charter in 1988 – and David Littman was already in front of the UN humans right commission in January 1989 protesting it (more.)

DAVID LITTMAN VIDEO INTERVIEW: OVERWHELMING ISLAMISATION OF THE UN

The Obama administration furthered the islamization of international law and signed on to the Cairo declaration.

Throughout her four years as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was Obama’s point-person in the administration’s collusion with the OIC. Among the most significant “achievements” of this partnership — and, from a constitutional perspective, the most appalling one — has been the adoption of Resolution 16/18. In blatant violation of the First Amendment, this provision calls on Western governments to outlaw any speech that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” toward religion, on the rationale that such speech could provoke “religious hatred.” (more here)

Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration signed on to U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which mandates the suppression of speech that could cast Islam in a bad light — regardless of whether the speech is accurate or the negative impression it creates is justified.

The ‘Palestinianization’ of international law

Some may think this is solely Israel’s problem. That the double standard will stop there. I disagree.

By Robert Neufeld, January 18, 2024:

The genocide case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought by South Africa against Israel lifts the veil over a process that has been affecting the entire corpus of international law – already far exceeding its roots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is the “Palestinization” of international law.

International law has always been deeply infested with politics, certainly when regarding the Laws of Armed Conflict. No country is eager to restrain itself according to external limits imposed upon its freedom to use its powers. Those who pushed for such restraints were usually those who could benefit from them, and those who objected were those who could lose their advantage.

It usually took dramatic and unfortunate events, which exacted a terrible price, to bring about significant leaps in law that truly benefit humanity. The most important of these was War World II, which led to the 1945 Geneva Conventions, and soon after, in 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is now the focus of the ICJ.

This case is not about Israel, it is about the future of international law

For example, according to UN Watch, from 2015-2022, the UN General Assembly adopted 140 resolutions on Israel and 68 on other countries. Between 2006-2022, the UN Human Rights Council adopted 99 resolutions against Israel; 41 against Syria; 13 against Iran; 4 against Russia; and 3 against Venezuela. Regardless of the tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths each year in conflicts around the world – the unimaginable atrocities and millions displaced annually – an extra-terrestrial landing on Earth would be certain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is this world’s main problem.

This does not stop at the gates of politics: willing or not, the entire body of international law is now being “Palestinized.” Core concepts of international law are literally being refashioned to accommodate Palestinian interests. The examples are abundant and – even more troubling – they have seeped into the mainstream. They have changed the understanding of international law, which is now viewed through a Palestinian prism.

One such notion is “occupation.”

AFTER MORE than 100 days of war, Israel has not yet taken control of the Gaza Strip which it left in 2005, evacuating all its settlements, and where Hamas has proudly ruled for 17 years, with complete civil and security dominance. Any Israeli who would have dared cross the border would have been either shot or taken hostage.

Yet, for most of the international community, Gaza is still “occupied” by Israel. A new framework was invented, mostly based on Israel’s control of the land borders (conveniently ignoring the Egyptian one of course), the air space, and the coastline. The absurdity hit an extreme when the South African legal delegation claimed before the ICJ that Israel had no right of self-defense following the October 7 massacre and that it is conducting operations in a territory it already “occupies.”

Then came the “apartheid” allegation against Israel.

What we know about it from the South African experience is no longer relevant: A country that has been widely recognized as the only democratic state in the Middle East, is now being demonized as the world’s worst violator of human rights, even with respect to its own two million Arab citizens, who enjoy unparalleled freedoms compared to most, if not all, Arab states. Israeli Arabs can vote, be elected to public office, and have even served as government ministers.

Numerous principles of International Humanitarian Law – the Laws of Armed Conflict – have been twisted, to cast Israel as a war criminal. From the principle of distinction to necessary precautions in attacks, to proportionality, to the means and methods of war – the standards are raised when it comes to Israel. Furthermore, even basic notions of international law, such as the definition of a “state,” have been reformulated to fit into the Palestinized paradigm.

But the allegation of genocide is the final nail in the coffin.

Keep reading…..

Pamela Geller Geller Report https://gellerreport.com/