In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) denounced the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling against Israel, labeling it as biased and politically influenced. The editorial highlights the inherent political nature of the ICJ, with judges elected by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, both known for having an anti-Israel bias.

The ICJ ruling called for an immediate halt to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) operations in Rafah, stating that Israel must not inflict conditions of life that could bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, primarily targeting Hamas. The WSJ responded by asserting that Israel's objective in Rafah was solely to combat Hamas, a non-member during the ICJ trial. The editorial argued that the ICJ's ruling had double standards, demanding nothing from Hamas while telling Israel unilaterally to cease fighting in the terrorists' stronghold.

While calling for a halt to IDF operations in Rafah, the ICJ failed to mention the reason behind the IDF's entry into the city, where they believed Hamas was holding over 100 hostages. The court did express concern over the hostages' captivity but did not directly call on Hamas to release them. The WSJ criticized the ICJ for ignoring Hamas's refusal to release the hostages, effectively asking Israel to abandon them.

The WSJ editorial also criticized the ICJ's order for Israel to reopen the Rafah crossing, as this decision lies within Egypt's control and not Israel's. The piece questioned why the ICJ blamed Israel when it was Egypt's refusal that hindered the reopening of the crossing. Furthermore, the editorial highlighted dissent within the court on the issue. Julia Sebutinde of Uganda doubted any genocidal intent on Israel's part and accused South Africa of misinterpreting and misreporting certain statements due to their friendly relationship with Hamas.

The WSJ voiced its concern over the ICJ's alleged bias, pointing out that one of the presiding justices, Nawaf Salam, has a history of denouncing Israel and remaining active in Lebanese politics. The editorial condemned the ICJ's ruling as an inversion of international law, alleging that Hamas hides behind its actions while Israel is wrongly accused.

The WSJ concluded by stating that the transparent nature of the ICJ ruling makes it easier to dismiss. It echoed the sentiment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting that only when Hamas is defeated in Rafah can the war in Gaza stabilize.

In response to the WSJ editorial, critics argue that the ICJ serves as an important international institution that strives to bring justice and resolve conflicts based on international law. They contend that the ruling was made based on the information and evidence presented during the trial. As opinions diverge, the controversy surrounding the ICJ ruling and allegations of bias continue to fuel the ongoing debate over Israel's actions in Rafah.