The long arm of international law is coming after Israel. The International Court of Justice (icj) is investigating the Jewish state for war crimes, including genocide. In May, a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (icc) requested an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict” and more.

These are ridiculous, demonstrably false accusations. But they are doing real damage to more than just Israel.

These courts were founded with a noble aim: to bring peace through the rule of law at an international level. By twisting the law to attack Israel, they are making the world a more dangerous place.

There is, however, a real need for international justice. The failure of these courts underscores just what a desperate need there is.

Genocide?

Israel is plainly not committing genocide, nor deliberately targeting civilians. The United Nations’ own figures prove this.

Also in May, the UN quietly halved its estimate for the number of women and children killed in Gaza. It had said 14,500 children were killed, but reduced that number to 7,797. It had claimed 9,500 women were killed; now it says 4,959.

These revised figures mean Israel is estimated to have killed one civilian for every combatant. This is an incredibly low civilian casualty rate, unprecedented in the history of urban warfare. And this is against an enemy that targets civilians, currently has hundreds of civilian hostages (if they are still alive), dresses as civilians, hides among civilians, and tries to get its own civilians killed to make Israel look evil in the propaganda war.

The icc prosecutor accused Israel of “the imposition of a total siege.” People can argue about whether Israel is doing “enough” to get aid through, but accusing Israel of imposing a “total siege” is a total lie. At the time of that accusation, Israel had allowed in more than 20,000 trucks and 400,000 tons of food. And Hamas is estimated to have made half a billion dollars by stealing the supplies and selling them on the black market.

So a major international body is biased against Israel. That’s not exactly rare or new. Why does this matter?

Why International Courts

Both the icc and the icj were founded to further the cause of peace by upholding international law. The icc goes after individuals who commit grave crimes against the international community. The icj upholds international law between nations.

Herbert W. Armstrong—founder of the Plain Truth, the Trumpet’s predecessor—was a great supporter of the icj—so much so that in 1973, many members of the court held a banquet in his honor. He called it “man’s ultimate machinery to produce world peace.” Why? Within nations, laws preserve peace and stability. Police enforce the laws, prosecutors advocate for them, and courts apply them and punish those who break them. This is why citizens can go out in public without having to constantly defend themselves against crimes. Could we apply the same machinery internationally to finally end international injustices and wars?

An international justice system isn’t just a possible way of producing world peace—it is the only way. As former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said, “Some rule of international law in the world is necessary if we are not to perish.”

“There can be no real peace until we have justice for all,” wrote Mr. Armstrong as he attended the first United Nations summit in 1945. Why? As he taught so often, there are laws that cause peace. If there is injustice, someone is breaking that law. Until that is rectified, there can be no peace.

On the occasion of icj Justice Nagendra Singh’s visit to Mr. Armstrong’s Ambassador College campus in California, Mr. Armstrong wrote, “He and I are in agreement, in principle, on what it will take to bring world peace. In his lectures he said two ingredients are basic—law and authority. Law without authority would be flouted and produce anarchy. Authority without law would be despotism and tyranny” (co-worker letter, June 28, 1971).

The icc and icj are attempts to establish such law. But they are failing.

Powerless

These courts do not have international police forces to execute their rulings. Countries that are signatories to the icc have to arrest someone the court finds guilty, but many countries are not signatories, and none will launch an invasion to arrest a fugitive. The icj can accuse a state of genocide, but there is little it can do after its ruling.

The courts have very limited power to punish lawbreakers or compel them to listen. International law plays a critical role in international cooperation. This magazine, for example, can be printed in one country and mailed around the world only thanks to a host of international agreements. But on the vital subject of war and peace, international law is almost powerless.

And the icc and icj have just made the situation worse.

Protecting Villains

For any system of international law to function, lawbreakers must be stopped and punished. And the icc and icj are making it almost impossible to do that.

Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest violators of international law in the 20th century. To stop him, the Allies were “causing starvation as a method of war”—as accusations against Netanyahu put it—blockading Germany’s food supplies. Around half a million German civilians died in Allied bombing campaigns—around seven times the combined number of British and American civilian deaths. Is that disproportionate and genocidal?

If the same standards used against Israel applied during World War ii, then Churchill and Roosevelt were war criminals and the Allies would have been investigated for genocide.

International law was meant to stop bad guys—like the Nazis—from rising again. Instead, it is being used to stop the good guys from fighting back.

The icc and icj, supposed guardians of international law, have become bastions of lawlessness. They are protecting lawbreakers from the consequences of their own actions.

How do we solve this? Straighten out the courts and then give the UN and other authorities international police forces?

Surrendering Authority

Former UN Secretary General U Thant said, “If the United Nations is to grow into a really effective instrument for maintaining the rule of law, the first step must be the willingness of the member states to give up the concept of the absolute sovereign state in the same manner as we individuals give up our absolute right to do just as we please, as an essential condition of living in an organized society.”

Is Russia willing to give up its freedom to act and surrender authority to the United Nations? Is the United States?

This brings up another problem. The United Nations and other international organizations like the World Health Organization aren’t exactly popular in America right now—for good reason. It is practically impossible for voters to influence large, multinational organizations. So these organizations have become powerful tools for educated technocrats who think they know better than “ordinary” voters and therefore impose their will on democratic societies. Will empowering these men even more solve our problems?

“Unless some effective world super-government can be brought quickly into action, the proposals for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful,” said Winston Churchill. Yet nations have been too selfish to make such a government possible. And even if they succeeded, how could the rulers of a super-government be prevented from turning their power into the worst tyranny in history and triggering rebellions and civil war?

The case of Israel shows that those right at the top of this international court system are acting with horrendous prejudice and actually perpetrating injustice.

The Root of the Problem

The problem is not with the system, but with human nature itself. No matter how you arrange it, people will act according to their own self-interests, whether on the individual or the national scale. Law can restrain human nature on a national scale when backed up by an authority that upholds it. But there’s no way to replicate that internationally.

The world’s only hope is for a world government. Yet for that to be just and lasting, mankind must change. As Mr. Armstrong wrote, “[T]he world’s only hope of survival is to change human nature!” (Plain Truth, December 1973).

The Bible is God’s instruction book for mankind. It contains the answers to man’s most fundamental problem: How can mankind bring peace? Isaiah 2 tells us God’s solution: “Cease ye from man,” God declares (verse 22). We must stop looking to different arrangements of human beings to solve our problems.

Only an incorruptible, perfectly just, loving God can establish the world government we desperately need.

There will be more wars and suffering until mankind learns this most fundamental lesson. But once people are willing to listen to God, then true justice can prevail. Nations will be judged—and punished—for war crimes. And law will be established over the whole Earth. But instead of the icj, the returned Jesus Christ “shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Micah 4:3).

The rule of international law is the answer. But it will not be successfully established by the courts or laws of man.

The law of God will go out to the whole world, and a godly administration will punish lawbreakers. God will change human nature. And the world will finally have peace.