On the international scene, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has audaciously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former defense minister, Yoav Gallant. The accusations levied against these individuals were particularly outrageous, suggesting they had a hand in causing starvation and indiscriminate slaying in the ‘widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza’. The court also issued a warrant against Hamas commander, Mohammed Deif, blaming him for stirring up the antagonizing Israeli campaign. On one hand, the court holds Netanyahu and Gallant responsible, and, on the other hand, the one who instigated the conflict isn’t spared either- it’s hard to make heads or tails of the situation.
These latest actions appear to be skewing the global discourse around the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip and are all set to direct unwanted attention towards the U.S. and Israel. Legal professionals have shared with HuffPost the possible implications of this move on the international observation of Israeli actions and the U.S.’s role therein. They question whether both countries have genuinely adhered to global standards for protecting civilians during the time of dispute.
Surrendering Netanyahu and Gallant to the court seems a remote possibility; thus, all signs point to a paucity of subsequent trials. Yet, as Adil Haque, a Rutgers University scholar states, ‘these arrest warrants will not vanish into thin air.’ Matching this newfound stubbornness, neither the U.S. nor Israel are part of the ICC, while a majority of the world’s countries—124 of them—are.
Following the issuance of the warrants, officials from various European countries and Canada displayed their biases transparently, declaring their intent to respect the directive from the ICC. This suggests that they’re willing to apprehend Netanyahu and Gallant if given the chance. In the words of Brian Finucane, from the International Crisis Group, these warrants could ‘provide the impetus for national authorities in other countries to start their prosecution process related to Gaza incidents.’
The ripple effect of this action may result in legal action against ‘those aiding Gaza related actions’ – a cohort that could even include American officials. These potentially targeted individuals are allegedly involved in arming Israel despite knowledge of accused war crimes. The intentionally provocative ICC statement shines a spotlight on the interplay between American influence and perceived Israeli policy failures, underhandedly suggesting the U.S. might have done more to stem civilian casualties.
Furthermore, they suggest that allegations of the Israeli domestic legal system’s capability of managing claims of atrocities or infringements against international law are flimsy at best. Whether or not Israel initiates an internal investigation for the possible war crimes becomes a deciding element in the question of its legal entitlement to aid from nations such as the U.S.
The ICC, it seems, with its ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect criminal culpability of Netanyahu and Gallant for enforcing mass starvation among Palestinians and intentional killing of civilians, have opened up another avenue for questioning Israeli practices. This happens even as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is examining South Africa’s claim of a genocide by Israel in Gaza. These foreign allegations could potentially boost internal resentments against prevalent U.S. support for Israel.
Moreover, these ongoing investigations into the Gaza war are primed to generate strategic complexities for the United States. Playing both sides of the field, the U.S. backs the warrant issued against Putin, yet is contradictory in their stand against the warrant for Netanyahu.
This mismatch in attitudes could possibly drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe in the future. The possibility of a U.S. offensive against the ICC has been suggested by Anthony Dworkin, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Despite the actions taken by the ICC, some might question the legitimacy of the charges raised against Israel’s leadership. Is Netanyahu genuinely guilty of such heinous accusations? Could Gallant genuinely have had a role in crimes against humanity? And even if these allegations are grounded in truth, how will they ever be answered if Israel continues to reject ICC jurisdiction?
Recalling the complicated history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, one must consider whether the responsibility for ‘widespread and systematic attacks’ against the civilian population of Gaza can be levied on these individuals alone. Taking into consideration the various other players on the chessboard, does the international community overlook their contributions to the saga? These are questions that remain unanswered.
Funny though, how those warrants were received by the international community. It appears as if, even with the ICC skating on thin ice with its credibility, some nations are quick to uphold these international arrest warrants. There’s less focus on pursuing peace and understanding and more on a climate of blame as the world appears to swirl around a vortex of vendetta.
While these allegations ostensibly level the playing field, the sudden pressure may do more harm than good. The international community might be best served by revisiting their understanding of this multifaceted conflict instead of caving in to the sensationalist claims of legal entities with controversial history.