One of the many books covering the changes in Iraq from before to after Saddam Hussein's ouster is Joseph Braude's The New Iraq. Among the topics covered in this book is the rebuilding of Iraq's justice system in the post-Saddam era. In describing this task, Braude started with a description of Saddam's concept of justice. Rather than present an overriding theme, Braude presented an anecdote to illustrate how Saddam thought the courts should pursue justice.
Summarizing from my memory of having read it several years ago, one time, while Saddam was traveling, he got hungry and started looking for a food stand that would provide him with something to eat. One street vendor, on seeing him pass by, said "O Saddam, to whom I owe my life, let me provide you with something to eat." Saddam placed an order, which the vendor fulfilled. After being impressed with the meal he had had, Saddam asked the vendor if there was anything he could do to pay him. The vendor replied that it was enough that Saddam provided for his life. After much back-and-forth, Saddam finally got the vendor to open up that he had a dispute with someone in the courts. The courts resolved that this vendor would get what he wanted from the process.
There are some similarities in some counties in America when it comes to tort law. In particularly plaintiff-freindly counties, all that's needed to secure a favorable verdict is to demonstrate that the plaintiff was injured and some involvement of the defendant. In other counties, those that are defendant-friendly, any plaintiff who does not match the profile of the surrounding community has no chance to prevail, no matter what the facts are. Either way, facts are irrelevant, it is simply a matter of doing "justice," for the plaintiff in the former category and for the defendant in the latter.
Such is the case of how the international community pursues "justice" when Israel is involved. From their perspective, Israel is victimizing the Palestinians by expropriating the land that is "rightfully" theirs. Thus whenever a case comes up and there is an opportunity to ameliorate the suffering Israel "imposes" on the Palestinians, the attitude becomes "facts shmacts, do what is necessary to justify the result."
This phenomenon occurs in both official international fora, such as the ICJ, and in the international media. To take one of the most recent example from international fora, the UNHCR voted to investigate Israel's "crimes" in connection with Operation Protective Edge. For the UN, it was enough that Israel was attacking targets in Gaza and that innocents were dieing. What standards Israel should be compared against for target selection and precautions were irrelevant. After, "justice" has to be done for the Palestinians.
Similarly, in their coverage of Operation Protective Edge, the international media don't bother looking in to Israel's claims as to what is at the targets or comparing Israel's precautions against killing civilians to anyone else's precautions. It is simply a matter of doing "justice," and if a distorted picture leads people to be more interested in pursuing "justice," then that what is needed.