Main Edition
US
FR
Israelis won't throw him under the bus. Abir Sultan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
International law has spoken once again. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, are now wanted men. The International Criminal Court has, for the first time in its 22-year history, issued arrest warrants for democratically elected politicians.
Netanyahu, accused of starvation and directing attacks against civilians, has described the warrants as “antisemitic” and a “dark day in the history of humanity”. Keir Starmer has nonetheless effectively endorsed them.
It’s hard, though, to see how the warrants stand up as law. Israel is not a member of the ICC and Palestine, which along with human rights luminaries South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti petitioned for the warrants, is not recognised as a state by many. Meanwhile, the Rome Statute that governs the ICC states that any member cannot affect “the rights and privileges” of a third party that is not a signatory.
It’s unsurprising, then, that the Israelis are enraged. The particularly egregious crime of starvation, according to the Statute, relates to “depriving [civilians] of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions”. To prove this, the court must show that Israel acted with the deliberate intent of starving civilians. It’s hard to see how it can given Israel permits aid into Gaza daily. Food insecurity is not an indication of deliberate starvation; nor can Israel do anything to mitigate the hijacking of aid supplies by Hamas.
Yet more enraging, as far as the Israelis are concerned, the ICC is only supposed to intervene as a court of last resort when a nation is “unwilling or unable” to investigate alleged crimes itself. As Dr Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor of international relations and international law at Leiden University, points out: Israel’s “fiercely independent” prosecutors weren’t allowed the opportunity to investigate themselves before the ICC issued the warrants.
And the warrants aren’t only legally disreputable, they’re politically cretinous. They’re a gift to Netanyahu — who was reviled by many Israelis even before the negligence that allowed October 7 to happen. Now though, in the face of this type of external attack, the country is rallying behind him. The result? He will almost certainly feel emboldened. More military operations, not fewer, are likely in Gaza and Lebanon. And you can forget any idea of a negotiated peace — at least for the moment. If Palestine is putting out arrest warrants on Netanyahu, he’s hardly going to be making deals with them. It’s a colossal own goal.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe point that’s missed, I think, is that the ICJ’s posturing does a great deal of PR and reputational damage to Israel, as those who know or care little of this corrupt kangaroo court’s workings will cite the arrest warrants to judge and condemn Israel in the court of public opinion. As with the ICC rulling, which did NOT accuse Israel of genocide, such lawfare nevertheless emboldens those who want to, and gives traction to those who want to delegitimise Israel under cover of spurious legal arguments.
Hate to be pedantic, but there is a difference between the ICJ and the ICC. Both, confusingly, are located in The Hague.
The ICJ is an organ of the United Nations. Its authority is recognised by all member states of the UN. It adjudicates on disputes between member states.
The ICC was founded in 2002. It is recognised by the UN, but it’s not part of the UN. It was the result of Clinton and Blair at their boy-scoutish worst. It prosecutes individuals, not countries. The idea is that no villain should ever evade justice. Notable convictions are Milosevic (Serbia) and Taylor (Liberia). It is recognised only by around 60 countries.
Well said, indeed …..
The ICC should just go away. It’s a mockery of justice.
Along with the WHO.
Sorry, but the entire notion of “international law” is and always has been a farce meant for consumption by people who can’t or won’t accept the hard truth that disputes between nations are and always have been decided mainly by cold calculations of national power and self-interest, not by any set of legal or moral principles. In the best of times, international law and courts serve as mutually agreed upon venues among more or less friendly nations to debate and resolve those routine disputes that do not merit the direct attention of national leaders and governments. Such authorities and standards as may be created and agreed upon are at all times subject to the continued willingness of all parties to continue to abide by them. Such consent can be withdrawn at any time with consequences determined always and exclusively by those same calculations of relative national power.
American voters, particularly Trump voters, are pretty comfortable with this. Most Americans don’t know what the ICC is, let alone care, and most would probably scoff at the notion that an international organization that they didn’t vote for should or does have any authority over them or the country. Most likely they also won’t care whose arm Trump has to twist or what threats he makes to whom or which country gets shafted in the deal, so long as it saves taxpayer money or benefits Americans in some other way. Even those who didn’t vote for Trump probably wouldn’t cite the well being of the international order or America’s reputation as being high on their list of concerns, if it makes the list at all. Thus, when Lindsey Graham threatens to sanction whoever he pleases and expresses contempt for the entire concept of the ICC, he is speaking in the stark language of power politics that Americans, those who care anyway, would probably endorse. Indeed, Graham is speaking so provocatively because he knows it will resonate with his voters and score political points. To put it in the common vernacular, he knows the voters have his back on this one.
It’s worth comparing Mr. Patrikarakos’ excellent piece with Jonathan Freedland’s, in the Guardian on 22nd November, and you can see what an almighty foulup this is for all concerned. It’s a right old muddle. The only guaranteed loser is the concept of international law.
Still, it has its comic aspects. Maybe we should send Starmer to Israel to try to perform a citizen’s arrest. Can’t help thinking that on a deep, poetic level, Netanyahu and Starmer deserve each other.
Perhaps the Israelis could detain Starmer and rid us of this troublesome prime minister!
There is one big inaccuracy in this accuracy. Namely Assad did not actually carry out Chemical weapons attacks. Sure he was accused of that with no evidence, but that accusation has been debunked and the attack probably came from the rebels. This sort of misinformation weakens the article considerably.
How on earth do you believe that to be true?