The problem with Israel's High Court of Justice applying standards of international law to Israel is that, at best, international law embodies noble sounding but ultimately empty slogans, at worst, it is actively hostile to Israel's existence.
When Israel's High Court co-opts these standards it is not elevating itself, but rather co-opting the views of Israel's enemies. It is, in fact, forcing to abide by standards that are meant to be inimical to Israel's interests. There is nothing enlightened by such an approach.
Here's an example of "international law"
In these ways the General Assembly explicitly affirmed that the permission which had been granted national-liberation movements to use "all necessary means" included terrorism and hostage taking. And in case anyone doubted that the permission was serious, the support offered to Abu Z. Ein in 1982 showed vividly that the General Assembly majority meant precisely what it implied: throwing grenades into a crowded Israeli supermarket - killing and maiming shoppers - was an act of "political dissent" and "self-defense" and was not punishable by law. For when, after two-and-a-half years of legal battles, the U.S. courts finally agreed to honor Israel's request for extradition of Abu Ein (who had been represented by a former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark), the General Assebly condemned the United States and Israel. Abu Ein, it said, was a "freedom fighter" and Israel had no right to put him on trial.