B’nai B’rith President Seth J. Riklin and CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin have issued the following statement:

B’nai B’rith International assails an “advisory opinion” by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court of the United Nations, that predictably echoed the explicit bias of a request by the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) regarding the “legal consequences” of Israel’s presence and policies in Palestinian-claimed territories.

That request, at end of 2022, came in a resolution that itself repeated assertion that Israel is guilty of “ongoing violation” and of “discriminatory legislation and measures.” It sought an opinion on alleged offenses by the Jewish state alone.

The UNGA is an inherently political body—one in which Arab and Muslim states, along with their autocratic allies, enjoy an automatic majority. The assembly ritually passes more anti-Israel motions than those targeting all other countries.

The world court, for its part, is the court of the U.N., with judges from the world body’s member states. It is currently presided over by a judge from Lebanon—a country, dominated by the leading Iranian-sponsored terrorist organization Hezbollah, that denies Israel’s legitimate existence and remains in a state of war with it. Absurdly, but accordingly, the court opined that the U.N.—“especially” the General Assembly—should “consider modalities” for curbing the Israeli “occupation” and act upon the biased opinion that the UNGA solicited.

Affirming longstanding U.N. dogma—one not extended to countless situations of conflict, territorial disputes and peoples denied statehood worldwide—the majority of ICJ judges deemed Israel’s presence in Palestinian-claimed territories unlawful; they called on Israel to “immediately” end that presence and that of Jewish residents, implicated Israel in obligation to make “reparation” for harm, and urged other countries and international organizations to deny any aid to maintain the status quo. The judges concluded that Israel’s actions amount to “annexation” indicating intent for “permanent” control and that there is no “legitimate public aim” in Israeli practices they labeled discriminatory.

Inexcusably, the world court patently failed to recognize that Israel’s presence and defensive measures in the territories are a direct response to never-ending, acute violence and existential threats against Israel. It also overlooked the fact that Palestinian and other anti-Israel extremists have not only openly rejected Israeli self-determination but prevented full Palestinian political self-determination by dismissing every sweeping Israeli offer of coexistence.

Every single Israeli soldier and “settler” was readily withdrawn from once-held lands in Gaza, southern Lebanon and elsewhere decades ago. Yet anti-Israeli terrorism persists and dramatically intensifies.

Most outrageous, the world court mimicked a plainly false and defamatory claim that Israel—the Middle East’s only pluralistic democracy—has breached provisions against “racial segregation and apartheid.” This assertion is made despite the fact that extremists perpetrate horrific atrocities, endangering Jews, other regional minorities, and Arab civilians alike with their violence, incitement and use of human shields.

By issuing its “advisory opinion” simply parroting the overt, exhaustive bias of the political body that commissioned it, the world court has emboldened malign forces in the Middle East while again injuring its own basic credibility.

B’nai B’rith—whose Office of United Nations Affairs has led accredited Jewish communal engagement with the world body since its creation in 1945—will continue to closely scrutinize the world court and interface with governments on Israel’s long-denied right to genuine equality and fairness in international institutions.