In a display of mindboggling disregard for a partner nation, President Joe Biden has fiercely criticized the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) effort to issue a war crimes arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister. The ICC has also sought to charge Benjamin Netanyahu’s freshly dismissed Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas commander, Mohammed Deif, who, according to Israel, perished in July. The court desperately claims that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to assume these three individuals might be implicated in criminal activities during the Israel-Hamas conflict. In a stark display of an ideological divide, the response on this warrant from Europe and the US has been as different as the day from the night.
While several European countries are exhibiting respect for the ICC’s decisions in their diplomatic play, the British government mildly states that it upholds the independence of this court. In an unsettling declaration, Biden, however, goes on record to claim, ‘Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.’ Biden also vows unshakeable US support against the perceived risks to Israel’s security. Both Israel and Hamas have returned the ball, rejecting the allegations made against them by the ICC.
Netanyahu, who has been at the helm during these crisis times, doesn’t shy away from giving the ICC’s decision a stark label: ‘The antisemitic decision of the international court in The Hague is a modern Dreyfus trial, and it will end the same way.’ He is making a strong reference here to an infamous example of antisemitism from France’s past history. Following this, Netanyahu continued to decry the accusations made by the court: ‘The court in The Hague accuses us of a deliberate policy of starvation.’
In pointed contrast to the ICC’s claims, Netanyahu cites the 700,000 tons of food supplied by Israel to Gaza as justification. To further debunk the allegations, he explains that Israel has taken proactive measures, such as issuing millions of text messages, phone calls, and leaflets to the Gaza citizens to take them out of harm’s way. Meanwhile, he accuses the Hamas administration of resorting to immoral methods to keep them in danger – including shooting them and using them as human shields. Such statements highlight the towering complexity of perceived narratives in such politically charged environments.
In denial of the ICC’s authority, Netanyahu has publicly stated that Israel will ‘not recognize the validity’ of the court’s decision. Paradoxically, in the same week, the UN has issued an alarm that Palestinians are ‘facing diminishing conditions for survival’ in parts of Northern Gaza, which are under siege by Israeli forces. The UN maintained that virtually no aid had reached these parts in over 40 days, creating a grim scene.
In stark disagreement with the ICC, Gallant voiced out that it is absurd for the ICC to place ‘the state of Israel and the murderous leaders of Hamas in the same row’, thereby legitimizing heinous acts enacted by Hamas. Echoing similar sentiments, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli Prime Minister, claimed that while he doesn’t agree with Netanyahu’s management of the conflict, he denounces the ICC’s decision, adding: ‘Israel has not committed genocide or war crimes that deserve these charges against the prime minister and the minister of defence.’
While Hamas failed to acknowledge the Deif warrant, it celebrated the momentum against Netanyahu and Gallant as an ‘important historical precedent, and a correction to a long path of historical injustice against our people’. Palestinians in the region have thereby started harboring hopes that Israeli leaders could finally face justice in the wake of this development. Despite ICC’s allegations of genocide by Israel in Gaza, Israel vehemently rejects these accusations, marking another chapter in the age-old conflict.
The real power and potential fallout of the ICC’s warrants remain uncertain at the moment. The enforcement of these directives squarely depends on the court’s 124 member states—excluding Israel and the US. Although these countries have shown no signs of willing enforcement, some European heavyweights like the EU, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Italy have all expressed their respective solidarity with the court, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
The ICC’s case against the indicted trio stems from an incident dated October 7, 2023, when Hamas gunmen reportedly attacked Israel. The assault resulted in around 1,200 casualties and another 251 individuals taken to Gaza as hostages. In response, Israel initiated a military campaign to eliminate Hamas. The volatile operation led to the reported death of roughly 44,000 people in Gaza, as per data from Gaza’s Hamas-controlled health ministry.
As per the ICC’s pre-trial chamber, Deif was found to have ‘reasonable grounds’ to be held liable for multiple heinous crimes against humanity and war crimes. The acts include murder, extermination, torture, sexual violence, cruel treatment, and hostage-taking. The chamber further shared a belief that the committed atrocities were part of a ‘widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civil population of Israel.’
The findings against Netanyahu and Gallant, who was replaced as Defence Minister earlier this month, were just as severe. The chamber found reasonable grounds to consider them culpable of multiple crimes, including the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and multiple crimes against humanity. Such findings, if true, show the extent to catastrophic decisions leadership can make during times of tension and war.
Beyond these allegations, the ICC also suggested that both individuals bear some criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the supposed war crime of intentional attacks against the civilian population. Further adding to the damage, Israel made appalling claims that 97 hostages are still in the hands of the Hamas regime in the aftermath of the 2023 attack.
These unsettling developments have cast a long shadow over international relations and the notion of justice. On one side, Hamas and Israel persist in denying the accusations, while UN reports paint a drastically humanitarian crisis. Amidst all of this, Biden’s dissent towards the ICC’s decisions comes off as utterly misplaced, given the gravity of the allegations.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation, such a divisive stance from a world-leader like Biden adds fuel to the fire rather than contributing towards a peaceful resolution. We might not be privy to all the backroom dynamics influencing such decisions. However, the implications of these public positions have far-reaching effects on the global stage that cannot be underestimated.
As the world watches, a potent question arises: Should we expect a rational resolution that respects humanity in such politically charged circumstances? Or, are we participating in another episode of history where power dynamics continue to trample on the principles of justice, fairness, and human rights? Only time will tell. Until then, we must critically keep an eye on the developments around these allegations and remember: the strength of our global society lies in our collective pursuit of truth and justice.