Absurdity on the world stage

On Nov. 21, 2024, the dream of advancing peace through “global governance”—regulating world affairs through the authority of international institutions rather than through sovereign nations—revealed itself to be a dangerous illusion. On that day, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. They stand accused of “crimes against humanity and war crimes” in leading Israel’s defense of itself after Hamas’ murderous rampage on Oct. 7, 2023.

The ICC alleges “reasonable grounds to believe” that the Israeli leaders “bear criminal responsibility” for intentionally starving the civilian population of Gaza, knowingly depriving them of food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity, and intentionally attacking the civilian population.

But the fault for the Palestinians’ horrible suffering lies with the Hamas militants, who attacked Israel without cause, took hostages, murdered around 1,200 men, women, and children, and injured many more in unspeakably sadistic ways. In Gaza, Hamas moves among civilians. Fighters and weapons are hidden in hospitals, schools, mosques, and residential neighborhoods, guaranteeing thousands of civilian casualties so that Israel can be blamed.

In defending itself against these thugs, Israel has gone as far as any warring party in history to limit civilian casualties and suffering. It warns the population before carrying out airstrikes. It puts its own soldiers at risk to avoid harming civilians. It allows aid deliveries to Gaza, even though Hamas benefits from the aid more than the populace.

What is the ICC and how can it claim the right to arrest and try the leaders of a sovereign, democratic nation? The answer to that question begins with the concept of global governance.

A term widely used for a wide variety of purposes, global governance is, in essence, the attempt to introduce a global rule of law that would achieve a peaceful world by developing a comprehensive network of international institutions that would establish and enforce an ever-growing body of international law. According to the global governance plan, sovereign nations would be bound by this arrangement, not only in foreign affairs but also in much of their domestic policy.

Global governance is based on the idea that internationalist elites, purportedly representing global interests, are justified in overriding the sovereignty of national governments that cause conflict and war in their pursuit of selfish national interests.

Established in 2002, the ICC is central to the global governance project. It is designed to investigate, try, and punish four types of crimes that might otherwise go unpunished: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The ICC claims it is a court of last resort whose purpose is to complement national courts, not to replace them.

The idea of bringing war criminals to justice sounds good. The problem is that the ICC is subject to the laws of no elected legislature. It is effectively unaccountable to any nation, citizens, or laws. The ICC prosecutor can open an investigation at his own discretion, subject only to the approval of a small committee of ICC judges, unchecked by any outside institution or government.

Since the court is independent, there are few constraints to prevent it from prosecuting “crimes” that would not be defined as such by any remotely reasonable interpretation of the internationally recognized laws of war. The ICC campaign against Israel exemplifies that.

Although Israel is not a party to the ICC and thus does not recognize its jurisdiction, the court intends to use its extensive powers to conduct a politicized witch hunt against the leaders of a nation defending itself against unprovoked attacks from all sides.

Needless to say, it would be foolish to think that the United States—which, like Israel, is not a party to the ICC—is immune from such harassment, especially with Donald Trump back in office, the man global governance leaders love to hate.

Why such absurdity? For many, the dream of world peace through “global governance” is too attractive to be deterred by reality. This is most apparent in Europe. The European Union—governed largely by supranational institutions that often act independently of the EU’s member-state governments—is the only existing model of what global governance might look like.

When the ICC warrants were issued, the then–European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell promptly declared that ICC “decisions are binding on all States party to the Rome Statute, which includes all EU Member States.” At least 17 European nations (including 13 EU members) have announced they will arrest Netanyahu if he travels to their country.

I can’t help but add that the ICC has also issued an arrest warrant against Mohammed Deif, the former head of Hamas’ military wing. He is almost certainly dead. This is evenhandedness in the ICC’s world. It has issued two real warrants against living Israeli officials and one fake warrant against a dead terrorist while explaining that it will “continue to gather information with respect to his reported death.” Truly, you can’t make this stuff up.

Another breathtaking irony is that for the past 15 months, Israel, no bigger than New Jersey, has been almost single-handedly leading civilization’s fight against barbarism. And what is its reward? The global governancers of the “civilized” West are turning against their own greatest defender.