Afrasianet - Nabil Aljubaili - France's shocking decision to grant immunity to Israeli far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a severe stabbing on the idea of justice and at the same time an unquestionable sign of the selectivity and double standards of European and American counterparts.
Worse still, the Parisian immunity did not stem from conviction, fatwa or jurisprudence, but rather from a "political concession" in order to push Netanyahu to accept France's membership in the committee monitoring the implementation of UN Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and to ensure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which guarantees Paris the protection and expansion of its economic interests in Lebanon, even if it is in partnership with Iran and its proxies.
If influential Western capitals invoked the justifications and arguments contained in the body of the resolution against Putin in order to support him, Netanyahu and his government and army continue to massacre civilians in Gaza for more than a year, not to mention crimes in Lebanon . Broadcast live on television channels and social media, no Western country that claims to be keen on the concepts of justice and human rights has exerted any serious pressure on the extremist government in Israel to stop the war and killing machine, not to mention the continued flow of weapons, bombs and rockets from Western capitals to Tel Aviv.
An observer of this reprehensible French act cannot but compare it to the same behavior towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, with his country being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; Putin did not receive immunity of this kind from any European country, after the court itself issued a similar decision. On the contrary, the ICC's decision against Putin at the time received tremendous European and American support and welcome.
The question raised today is about the feasibility of continuing to theorize international laws and human rights, and indeed the feasibility of teaching international law in universities in light of this blatant discretion!
The American position rejecting the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu, followed by the Parisian immunity, and then the decline of the voices of other Western parties.
All of this shocked human rights circles, and reopened the debate about the possibility of embodying the existence of international justice or not, especially since there are many European and American organizations, associations and personalities that have made long and intensive efforts over many years to convince people in developing countries and the countries of what is known as the third world of the importance of international justice, As the "guarantee" that protects them against the practices of repressive and authoritarian regimes.
What was even more remarkable was that America and its prominent partners in NATO stood against the arrest warrant against Netanyahu!
This position indicates that international courts of all kinds and names, and above them humanitarian laws and other derivatives of international justice, are all tools used by the West to reproduce its hegemony over global decision-making, sometimes to pressure states and governments to undermine their sovereignty, and at other times to adapt laws to ensure the sustainability of their financial and economic interests.
It also shows that the limits of The use of these tools is linked to Western geopolitical goals.
Therefore, the question raised today is about the feasibility of continuing to theorize international laws and human rights, and indeed the feasibility of teaching international law in universities in light of this blatant discretion!