Private Conviction Is No Answer For Flouting International Law

Which audience did Prime Minister Netanyahu have in mind when, in response to the ruling by the International Court of Justice, he said that Jews are not occupiers in their historical homeland? When the Chairman of the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee Edelstein rebutted the Court by drawing on our biblical rights, what did he hope to achieve?

Clearly, there is no need to convince like-minded people, meaning Jews whose political outlook is based primarily on faith or a sense of history, and some Christians. But if Netanyahu, Edelstein and others intended to persuade the rest of the world, their statements are obtuse and ineffective.

Two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, grew out of Judaism. Both believe that divine promises to the children of Israel were overtaken by their later revelations, and are therefore irrelevant. Other religions have different gods, one or more. For them, relying on an alien holy text for practical or political purposes is meaningless. There are people who do not believe in anything outside nature and a religious argument is like proving something via unicorns.

Overall, communication based on belief or a subjective concept of history and of rights is like trying to have a conversation without a shared language​ – there is simply no basis for mutual understanding.

To comprehend the futility of statements by Netanyahu, Edelstein and others, look at inheritance. Deep inner conviction is not enough to gain property that others also claim, and it is impossible to obtain goods based on a promise that cannot be confirmed with the promiser. That is why inheritance always requires an agreed procedure, such as law or a will.

To avoid misunderstandings regarding property and other desirables, each structure has its own rules. Authorities prohibit noise at certain hours, and a neighbor may be prevented from setting up a tent in the common garden, even if she is convinced that sleeping in fresh air will benefit her children. The principle of establishing rules that enable coexistence also applies to the international community.

Israel may decide that it cares nothing for world opinion (hypocrisy, antisemitism and the excessive power of hostile nations are not the subject of this post) and is therefore free to act according to her beliefs and interests while bearing the consequences. But if she strives for international understanding, using private terms to convince others is like talking to oneself.

For those who are preparing to respond along the lines of, what a shame that people like the writer who despise everything Jewish represented the State of Israel – you can remove your hands from the keyboard. During my postings abroad, absence from events on Shabbat generated much interest, and my strange request for a fruit plate while the rest of the table enjoyed a fine meal always garnered respect.

However, unlike the distinguished speakers, I realize that my country and I are not the center of the world. I understand that beliefs and customs which I share with several million others do not obligate all eight billion inhabitants of Earth, and that my internal outlook cannot compensate for Israel’s contravention of international legal norms.