Thank you, Netanyahu, for stripping Zionism of its lies and revealing Israel’s odious nature
A historic reckoning is underway in the corridors of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The South African genocide case against Israel—joined by Brazil, Ireland, Turkey, Chile, and seven other nations—isn’t just a legal proceeding but a fundamental turn of the corner, a sea change in the way in which the international community is now prepared to view Israeli conduct in Gaza. Two years ago, such a shift was unimaginable.
The numbers are telling a devastating story. According to the Health Ministry in Gaza, over 66,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023. An investigation by the Israeli magazine +972, together with The Guardian, found that five out of every six Palestinians killed by the Israeli military were civilians. This 83 per cent civilian death rate contrasts sharply with official Israeli claims about precision targeting and civilian protection.
“The speed and scale of the killing and destruction in Gaza are unlike anything in my years as secretary-general,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, the words carrying weight from someone who has witnessed conflicts across the globe. His assessment reflects a growing international consensus that what is happening in Gaza represents something extraordinary in its scope and devastation.
What has happened is that the legal architecture erected over decades to prevent atrocities has been engaged with unprecedented force. In January 2024, the ICJ ordered provisional measures, finding plausible rights violations and ordering Israel to prevent genocide, ensure humanitarian aid, and preserve evidence. By May, the Court went even further with the extraordinary order to tell Israel to stop its military offensive in Rafah immediately. These are no symbolic gestures but binding orders from the highest Court in the world, reflecting judicial alarm at documented conduct on the ground.
Traditional allies started publicly distancing themselves. French President Emmanuel Macron declared that fighting terrorism did not translate to “flattening Gaza or attacking civilian populations indiscriminately.” Former UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron said that British support for Israel was “not unconditional.” These carefully calibrated statements from governments that have historically stood by Israel’s side signal a diplomatic earthquake.
Perhaps most tellingly, President Petro articulated what many international observers have come to believe: “In Gaza, not only are children dying, but also the United Nations system. The values the West claims to defend are dying.” Such a statement captures the profound disillusionment with Western institutions that have appeared unable or unwilling to enforce their own stated principles.
The American public, for so long Israel’s most steadfast supporter, has dramatically shifted. Whereas in March 2024, approval of Israel’s military action in Gaza had fallen to 36 percent, disapproval reached as high as 55 per cent. Though approval rose somewhat by June, disapproval remained high at 48 per cent—a remarkable transformation in a country where support for Israel had, until recently, been a political given.
What was behind the calculations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during this crisis? An investigation by the New York Times revealed that Netanyahu had repeatedly rejected ceasefire deals to stay in power and avoid corruption charges. Israeli investigative reporter Ronen Bergman concluded: “Netanyahu put the integrity of the coalition, the safety of his continuous rule of the government and the state … as a first priority ahead of any other priority.” In other words, political survival trumped the lives of both Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages held in Gaza.
This revelation cuts to the heart of what has changed: the international community is no longer willing to accept blanket justifications for military action when evidence suggests that political calculations, rather than security imperatives, drive decision-making. Documentation has become too extensive, the civilian toll too high, the humanitarian catastrophe too visible.
The legal, diplomatic, and moral architecture that once gave Israel extensive latitude internationally has fractured. Several countries have joined genocide proceedings. The highest Court in the world issued binding orders. Traditional allies publicly qualify their support. International media, including Israeli outlets, document systemic patterns contradicting official narratives. Public opinion in key supporter nations has shifted markedly.
This does not mean that Israel has no friends-it still enjoys robust support from the US Congress and many Western governments. Nor, for that matter, is criticism of Israeli government policy an attack on Israel’s right to exist or its prerogative to self-defense. The distinction is essential, even if the lines sometimes blur in the heat of rhetoric from all sides.
What has changed fundamentally, however, is that the assertions of Israeli righteousness no longer command automatic international deference, that claims of military necessity are being subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and that the presumption of good faith has been eroded by documented evidence. The scale of destruction and death has pierced the protective shield that once deflected criticism.
The question no longer remains whether or not to criticize Israeli conduct in Gaza, but whether criticism will be translated into any meaningful form of accountability. The legal proceedings are underway. Diplomatic pressure mounts. Public opinion shifts. Yet the bombs continue to fall, and the death toll continues to rise.
History will note not only what happened in Gaza, but also what the world did while it was happening and what it did afterward. For now, the judgment of international opinion is unmistakable: something has snapped that cannot be so easily put back together.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.