The Miscarriage of Justice

It is hardly surprising that the antisemitism that has dominated European history would spill over into their courts of justice. The annals of jurisprudence are replete with cases where Jews were singled out for unwarranted prosecution, reflecting deep-seated prejudices rather than a pursuit of justice. Among the most shameful miscarriages of justice in modern history are:

–       The Damascus Affair (1840) in Syria, where prominent Jewish community members were falsely accused of ritual murder. Despite their eventual exoneration, this case revived medieval blood libel accusations across the Middle East and Europe.

–       The Tiszaeszlár Affair (1882-1883) in Hungary, where local Jews were accused of ritual murder of a Christian girl. Although all defendants were acquitted, the trial sparked widespread antisemitic riots and influenced similar cases across Europe.

–       The Dreyfus Affair (1894) in France, where Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer, was wrongly convicted of treason based on falsified evidence, fueled by rampant antisemitism within the French military establishment.

–       The Beilis Trial (1913) in Kyiv, then part of the Russian Empire, where Menachem Mendel Beilis was falsely accused of ritual murder in a case that stoked antisemitic sentiments and blood libel myths.

–       The Leo Frank Trial (1913) in the United States, where Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager in Atlanta, was wrongly convicted of murder and subsequently lynched by a mob—a case that highlighted antisemitism in American society and led to the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.

–       The Protocols Trial (1934-1935) in Bern, Switzerland, where, despite the court’s finding that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a forgery, antisemitic groups continued to promote this fraudulent document to justify persecution of Jews.

–       The Rudolf Slánský Trial (1952) in Czechoslovakia, where Rudolf Slánský and other Jewish officials were accused of conspiracy and treason in a Stalinist show trial marked by fabricated evidence and antisemitic rhetoric.

–       The Doctors’ Plot (1952-1953) in the Soviet Union, where a group of predominantly Jewish doctors was falsely accused of plotting to assassinate Soviet leaders as part of a wider campaign of antisemitism under Stalin’s regime.

These cases are stark reminders of how prejudice can subvert justice. Today, we witness echoes of this troubling history. The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has upheld this long and ignoble European tradition by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders—democratically elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This outrageous act, directed against the only democracy in the Middle East, will be recorded as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of international jurisprudence.

The biblical warning, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment” (Leviticus 19:15), once again falls on deaf ears. The ICC decision is the latest example of an unrighteous judgment.

The ICC’s selective prosecution is particularly glaring, given its silence on numerous documented war crimes and crimes against humanity worldwide. The court has shown no interest in investigating Hamas’s October 7 atrocities—including systematic rape, torture, and murder of civilians—nor Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own population, nor China’s treatment of the Uyghur minority. This selective justice mirrors historical patterns where Jews were singled out for prosecution while more egregious crimes were ignored.

The ICC’s action not only oversteps its charter—it has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing this court (neither are the United States, Russia, China, and numerous other countries)—but also reflects the court’s blatant antisemitism.

The pathetic farce of this decision is amplified by the inclusion in the arrest warrants of a deceased Hamas leader eliminated by Israeli forces months ago. This was not merely a misguided act by prosecutor Karim Khan nor an improvident decision by three imprudent judges. The decision was applauded by the European Parliament, many European countries, and Canada. Most tellingly, it was celebrated by Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist by many countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Canada. When institutions of justice find themselves aligned with such entities, their objectivity and moral compass are called into question.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but not morally blind. By drawing a false moral equivalence between the leaders of a terrorist organization and the democratically elected leaders of Israel—the Middle East’s only liberal democracy—the ICC has not demonstrated blind justice, but rather moral blindness. This distinction between judicial impartiality and moral abdication is crucial. The court’s failure to distinguish between those who deliberately target civilians and those who defend their citizens exposes not just bias, but a profound ethical and moral failure at the heart of international jurisprudence.

Once again, antisemitism has infiltrated not only political discourse, academic debates, and university campuses but also the hallowed halls of justice. The parallels with the Dreyfus Affair are unsettling. Just as Émile Zola famously declared “J’accuse!” to condemn the wrongful conviction of Dreyfus, we must now raise our voices against this historic miscarriage of justice on an international scale.

Just as the Dreyfus trial exposed the French military’s institutional antisemitism, the ICC’s actions reveal a troubling bias within international institutions. The same prejudices that once animated European courts now manifest in international tribunals, cloaked in the language of human rights and international law. This modern incarnation of judicial antisemitism is perhaps more insidious because it operates under the guise of universal justice while perpetuating age-old biases.

Antisemitism is not a badge of honor; it is a blight on societies that profess to uphold principles of equality and justice. Today, the ICC has demonstrated that it has lost its moral compass, its honor, and its legitimacy. To the dishonorable judges and officials swayed by prejudice rather than evidence, we say: “J’accuse!”

The timing of the ICC’s action is particularly revealing. It comes amid a surge in global antisemitism, with Jewish communities worldwide facing increased threats and violence. Rather than standing as a bulwark against such prejudice, the ICC legitimizes it through quasi-judicial means. This is reminiscent of how the Soviet show trials of the 1950s provided a veneer of legality to state-sponsored antisemitism. Today, the ICC, despite its proclaimed commitment to human rights, has become an instrument of prejudice.

The European Union’s insistence that member states enforce decisions rooted in historic European antisemitism only compounds the issue. It is incumbent upon every member of the human race, every person who values justice and humanity, to stand up and say to this kangaroo court: “Shame on you! J’accuse!”