In a controversial move, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently issued a landmark opinion declaring Israel's "settlements" in the occupied West Bank as a violation of international law. However, the decision seemed to receive little attention from mainstream US media outlets, including the New York Times, which drew criticism for downplaying and even ignoring the historic July 19 ruling.

The New York Times, often accused of finesse in reporting on Israel's settlements, placed the story at the bottom of page 5 in their print edition the day after the decision. Surprisingly, just two days later, the report mysteriously vanished from their online home page, leaving some questioning the paper's coverage.

Previously, the New York Times had employed the tactic of presenting "two sides" to the legality of Israel's settlements, but it seems this approach has evolved. The court's decision has essentially eliminated the notion of there being any genuine dispute regarding the legality of the settlements.

Referring to the inhabitants of these settlements as "settlers," a term favored by Israel and its supporters, has been a source of contention. Critics argue that the more accurate term should be "colonists," while the court's ruling raises the possibility of labeling them as "illegal settlers" given the violation of international law.

In contrast to the New York Times, the Washington Post was one of the few outlets that provided significant coverage of the ICJ's ruling. Their headline read, "Israel should evacuate settlements, pay reparations, ICJ says," capturing the essence of the judgment.

However, National Public Radio (NPR), known for its perceived bias in favor of Israel, failed to give adequate attention to the court's decision. Their on-air report, with a headline focused on a drone attack in Tel Aviv, overshadowed the ICJ's ruling. NPR did release a slightly longer report online, but it did not receive prominent airtime.

CNN's coverage was also lacking, with only a single online report that seemingly did not make it to the airwaves. Similarly, MSNBC had a brief 1:37 report on its website, but it remained unclear how frequently it was broadcast.

Perhaps the most concerning omission came from CBS News, once recognized for its revered journalists like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. Surprisingly, CBS has yet to air a single report on the ICJ's decision, leaving many questioning their commitment to uphold journalistic integrity.

The apparent lack of emphasis, suppression, and limited coverage given to the ICJ's ruling by mainstream US media outlets has drawn criticism from those who believe it undermines the importance of international law and justice. As the debate surrounding Israel's settlements continues, questions arise about the media's responsibility to provide comprehensive and unbiased coverage of significant global events.