The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. You can read the ruling here.
Jeremy Scahill amd Murtaza Hussain report that this is the first time that a leader favored by the US and western powers has been held to account.
In its ruling, the court explicitly rejected arguments made by Israel and the U.S. that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Israel. “The acceptance by Israel of the Court’s jurisdiction is not required, as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine,” the court said.
“This is a watershed event in the history of international justice. The ICC has never, in over 21 years, indicted a pro-Western official. Indeed, no international court since World War II has done so,” said human rights attorney and war crimes prosecutor Reed Brody. “Up until now, the instruments of international justice have been used almost exclusively to address crimes by defeated adversaries as in the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, powerless outcasts, or opponents of the West such as Vladimir Putin or Slobodan Milošević.”
…Senior officials from a number of European Union states, including France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, have said that they will abide by the rulings of the court, likely making these nations off-limits for travel for Netanyahu for the foreseeable future. European Union high representative on foreign affairs Josep Borrell also stated after the ICC announcement that, “the court’s decision must be respected and implemented,” by EU countries.
…The announcement summarizing the ICC’s reasoning for issuing the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant points to policies of the Israeli government aimed at denying food and medical supplies to the besieged civilian population of Gaza. The court announcement states that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity,” actions for which they added that there was “no clear military need.”
Gazans have faced death from both famine and medical neglect as a result of Israeli blockades on the territory, as well as direct military attacks for which the court also alleges that Netanyahu and Gallant are culpable. The two men have now become the first officials of a U.S. ally to be charged with crimes against humanity by the court. In its statement announcing their arrest warrants, the ICC said that their actions were, “part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.”
This has naturally created a storm of protest by US politicians who fall over themselves excusing any and all atrocities committed by Israel. They are even seeking to punish the ICC prosecutors.
The decision by the ICC to seek warrants against the two senior-most Israeli figures involved in the war in Gaza is certain to face furious pushback from the United States government, which already rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction over its own activities.
…This week, incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune called on Congress to pass bipartisan legislation sanctioning ICC prosecutors attempting to prosecute Israeli officials. The Biden administration has spent much of the past year undermining the legitimacy of international law and the jurisdiction of the ICC investigation of Israel. Some 42 Democrats voted for the House bill Thune is vowing to pass. If enacted, the legislation would impose sanctions on ICC personnel involved with prosecutions of U.S. citizens and those from allied nations that are not ICC members, including Israel. It would block some ICC officials from entry to the U.S. and revoke any U.S. visas.
To no one’s surprise, the utterly spineless and craven Joe Biden has called the ICC action ‘outrageous’, a word that he never used in describing the mass slaughter and death by starvation of the people in Gaza, where the word was warranted.
But the wall of support for Israel among western countries is showing cracks. Bernie Sanders introduced a resolution halting some arms shipments to Israel. Although it failed, it did get about 20 votes out of the 100 senators.
But more ominous for Netanyahu is that some western countries have said that they will honor the arrest warrants which means that Netanyahu and Galant cannot risk going to those countries.
Theoretically, the ICC warrant means Netanyahu and Gallant could be arrested if they travel to any of the more than 120 countries that are parties to the court. But several governments in Europe have already signaled they may not arrest the Israeli leader if he steps foot on their soil.
These countries include Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, and Austria who have explicitly said that they will arrest them if they enter their countries. Other countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have been unclear. As signatories to the ICC, they are obliged to carry out the arrest warrants but may seek to find ways to not do so. But being unclear means that Netanyahu and Galant would not risk going to those countries unless they get explicit guarantees that they will not be arrested.
Lassi Hippeläinen says
On the other hand, there’s Vladimir Orbán, who has declared that he will ignore the ICC. He even invited Netanyahu to visit Hungary, which made the EU quite unhappy.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/22/brussels-warns-orban-over-netanyahu-visit-its-your-duty-to-comply-with-icc-warrants
Katydid says
One upside to this past year: screaming “Anti-semite!” at anyone who dares say that maybe mass genocide of infants and women isn’t such a great thing and nor is destroying hospitals, schools, and apartment homes of civilians, is losing its power.
birgerjohansson says
The old man in the White House obviously condemned the decision by the ICC and has issued sanctions that will make it harder for ICC and its staff to function. So now you know where the US stands on the rule of law.
Holms says
^ USA has only ever paid lip service to the notion, supporting only those resolutions that are convenient to its policies, and disregarding or denouncing all others.