Mundane matters such as building code violations rarely make international headlines. But that’s only in the rest of the world. In Israel, even local issues are often inflated into major newsworthy incidents. All in order to leverage them for a political message.
On 17 October, the prosecutor charged with overseeing the activities in the West Bank by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague stated her dismay over the planned demolition of a Bedouin village southwest of Jerusalem. “I have been following with concern the planned eviction of the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, in the West Bank,” said Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. The ICC lawyer noted that “evacuation by force now appears imminent” and could result in “further escalation and violence” in the area. Bensouda finished with the following thinly veiled threat: “It bears recalling, as a general matter, that extensive destruction of property without military necessity and population transfers in an occupied territory constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute.”
The planned destruction of Khan al-Ahmar has caught the attention of several countries throughout Europe as well as other human rights bodies. Some national leaders have delivered an organized petition for Israel to forgo the planned demolition. Last month, eight EU countries —France, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, and Italy— issued a statement at the United Nations rebuking the Israel’s High Court of Justice September 5 decision to demolish the desert community. “The EU and its Member States have repeatedly stated their long-standing position on Israel’s settlement policy, illegal under international law, and actions taken in that context, including the demolitions of Palestinian communities and (possible) forced transfers of population,” the statement said.
The problem with both the statement of description by Prosecutor Bensouda and the European countries’ protest letter is that, like so much of the anti-Israel rhetoric on the world stage today, they implicitly paint an outrageously false narrative on which they lay out their criticism. These documents portray a thriving city that through no fault of the residents is being destroyed by the government in order to make way for Israeli settlements. Israel’s critics in this case said as much explicitly.
The reality, however, is that the village in question, which consists of a handful of corrugated shacks and houses some 190 shepherds, was illegally built without any building permits. The law for such a flagrant violation of building regulation in any area under Israeli control, which applies equally to Israelis and Palestinians, stipulates that the structures must be demolished. The Israeli government in this case went above and beyond, offering to resettle residents twelve kilometers away. As noted above, the case even reached Israel’s highest court, an institution notorious for its liberal leanings on the issue of illegal structures. The court ruled unequivocally that the settlement was subject to demolition.
Of course the mentioning of any of these facts would undermine the position of Israel’s accusers, so there was no mention of them in either the ICC statement or the EU states’ petition.
In a rather timely follow-up from U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton’s critique of the ICC last month, the ICC’s most recent tirade against Israel further demonstrates how politicized and skewed the court’s judgment is.
