Assad's Fall Mandates Refocus on Human Suffering

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria exposes the persistent tendency of the United Nations and Western governments, including France, to disproportionately criticize Israel while turning a blind eye to grave atrocities committed elsewhere.

Assad’s crimes, long documented but often ignored, have resulted in an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 deaths, tens of thousands of cases of torture, and over 100,000 disappearances. Yet, during this time, global organizations have overwhelmingly directed their scrutiny toward Israel, often blurring the distinction between collateral damage in warfare — exacerbated by Hamas' use of human shields — and accusations of genocide or war crimes.

This selective outrage undermines the stated commitments of many governments to combat antisemitism. Instead of addressing horrific crimes worldwide, they disproportionately target Israel and its leaders, going so far as to involve the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in unprecedented actions, such as issuing arrest warrants against a sitting Israeli prime minister.

France exemplifies this contradiction. The French government initially supported enforcing ICC arrest warrants against Israeli officials but has historically failed to advocate for strong international legal actions against regimes like Assad’s.

Recently, France’s refusal to include a demand for the release of hostages in a ceasefire resolution — a resolution so biased it prompted a U.S. veto — further underscores its double standards. Domestically, France has also failed to counter the rising antisemitic rhetoric propagated by far-left political movements, weakening efforts to combat antisemitism globally and leaving Israel increasingly isolated.

These inconsistencies embolden anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives while forcing Israel to rely on military means to confront threats from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

The ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, raise significant legal and ethical concerns:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, and is therefore not bound by its rulings. International law dictates that tribunals cannot exercise authority over nonsignatory nations without their explicit consent. The ICC’s actions against Israeli officials violate this principle, undermining the court’s legitimacy and exposing it to accusations of political bias.
2. Principle of Complementarity The ICC is designed to act only when a nation’s judiciary is unwilling or unable to prosecute alleged crimes. Israel’s independent judicial system has consistently demonstrated its ability to investigate and adjudicate military and governmental actions, including rulings against its own government and military. Ignoring this principle further erodes the ICC’s credibility.
3. Selective Enforcement The ICC’s focus on Israel, while neglecting egregious violations in nations like Syria and China, reveals a troubling bias. Leaders such as Bashar al-Assad, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and Chinese officials overseeing systemic abuses against the Uyghur population, have faced no ICC action despite jurisdictional applicability. This selective enforcement undermines the court’s claim to impartiality.
4. Dismissal of Evidence Israel has submitted evidence to the ICC demonstrating its extensive humanitarian aid to Gaza residents, even during conflicts. Reports indicate that the ICC has dismissed this evidence without proper consideration, highlighting its one-sided approach.

U.S. Legislative Pushback

In contrast to European inaction, the United States has strongly opposed the ICC’s actions against Israel. Congress is advancing the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which proposes economic sanctions and visa restrictions on ICC officials involved in these cases.

This bipartisan effort underscores the U.S. commitment to defending state sovereignty and supporting allies like Israel.

Broader Implications

The ICC’s actions against Israel set a dangerous precedent, undermining the sovereignty of democratic states and giving credibility to anti-Israel narratives that fuel global antisemitism.

By treating Israel’s elected leaders on par with recognized terrorist organizations, the court delegitimizes itself and diminishes its capacity to address genuine atrocities worldwide. This erosion of trust in international institutions has far-reaching consequences, hindering efforts to promote justice and fairness in global affairs.

The fall of Assad’s regime should serve as a reminder of the urgent need to focus on the real human suffering that exists throughout the world, and of the danger of Israel-bashing as an excuse to avoid taking action where it can make a difference.