Israel’s criminal responsibility is shielded by political complicity


Flag with the logo of the of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 29, 2022 in Den Haag, Netherlands [Alex Gottschalk/DeFodi Images via Getty Images]


MEMO
by Ramona Wadi
walzerscent
November 24, 2024 

It remains to be seen how world leaders of the 124 states that are party to the Rome Statute will comply with the international arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The ICC’s press release clearly states that both “bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

World leaders’ responses have varied from outright assertions of complying with the ICC arrest warrants, to calibrated replies and adamant rejection. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said that the Rome Statute would be implemented if Netanyahu sets foot in the country, as did Switzerland.

“Yes absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants,” Ireland’s Prime Minister Simon Harris told RTE yesterday. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, “We stand up for international law, and we abide by all the rulings and regulations of the international courts.” Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayma Safadi insisted that the ICC warrants should be implemented.

Israel is painting the ICC decision as “the first time the ICC has ever issued arrest warrants against leaders of a democratic country”. However, although Israel describes itself as a democratic country, it is a settler-colonial enterprise founded upon ethnic cleansing and sustained by genocide.

BLOG: USAID’s guise is dismantled by Israel’s genocide in Gaza

“No outrageous anti-Israeli decision will prevent us – and it will not prevent me – from continuing to defend our country in any way,” Netanyahu stated. Gallant called the decision as “a dangerous precedent against the right to self-defence and moral warfare and encourages murderous terrorism,” while describing his role as a ‘”privilege”.

The US, of course, rejected the ICC decision. “Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he would invite Netanyahu to visit. “I will guarantee him that if he comes, the warrant will have no effect in Hungary”. Argentina’s Javier Milei rejected the ICC’s decision, stating that it “ignores Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence”.

Other countries adopted a cautious stance. Germany, for example, stated that it is “now examining what it means for us in terms of its international application”. France’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Christophe Lemoine described the ICC warrants as “legally complex” and said that France’s reaction would align with the principles of international justice. Austria described the arrest warrants as ludicrous but that the country would have to implement the ICC decision. Italy took a similar approach, saying that there is no equivalence between Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas, but that the arrests would happen if either visited Italy.

“Australia respects the independence of the ICC and its important role in upholding international law,” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated.

Ahead of the G7 meeting to be held next week in which the ICC arrest warrants are to be discussed, Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani declared, “We respect and support the International Criminal Court, but we believe that its role should be legal rather than political.”

The ICC deals with criminal responsibility. However, the rhetoric of several leaders implies that a political stance will be influencing whether or not the ICC arrest warrants will be enforced if Netanyahu or Gallant visit the countries that are party to the Rome Statute. Almost all countries have prioritised their relations with Israel throughout the unfolding genocide in Gaza, and the ICC arrest warrants have only exposed the politics that underpin the overt or tacit support that Israel enjoys globally.

READ: Ex-France ambassador to Israel slams Germany’s refusal to comply with ICC arrest warrants

Countries that have stated they will implement the ICC’s decision could have taken a stance against genocide over a year ago. Yet, they waited until the arrest warrants to say they would comply with international law. What prevented these countries from abiding by international law prior to the ICC’s announcement?

As for the countries that attempted a neutral stance, the political deliberation is clear. Israel has committed genocide live-streamed. The criminal responsibility is clear – not only from the footage but also the constant incitement against Palestinians. Why does the G7 have to deliberate upon what action to take?

There is no unequivocal stance against genocide, but rather countries deciding upon opportune moments. What can be gleaned from most statements, including those that stated they would abide by the ICC’s arrest warrants, is that the purported political neutrality that supported Israel’s genocide in Gaza is still in full swing.

The ICC depends upon individual countries to enforce the arrest warrants. The Czech Republic, for example, described the ICC decision as “unfortunate” and said that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant “should be substantiated by evidence”. What more evidence could the country possibly require to see the legitimacy in the arrest warrants? Why is genocide in Gaza still largely debatable, to the point that signatories to the Rome Statute are pondering their decision? Who is politicising the arrest warrants – the ICC or world leaders?

The European Commission has warned Orban over his stance, saying that refusing to implement the ICC decision would “breach international obligations”. True, but what of the EU’s obligations under international law. Why doesn’t the EC speak of genocide in Gaza? The reason, of course, is clear. The EC is beholden to Israel’s security narrative. Its stance merely reflects the positioning of one international entity reciprocating the status of another international entity. The politics, however, does not indicate a stance against the crime of genocide but merely compliance with the possibility of the ICC arrest warrants being activated, should Netanyahu visit any EU country that is bound by the Rome Statute.

It is likely that criminal accountability as the ICC seeks to establish will be thwarted by political interpretation of the arrest warrants. However, let us all keep in mind that Israel’s genocide in Gaza is marked by both criminal and political accountability. The ICC arrest warrants have exposed the latter, in light of the genocide, to the point that oblivion is no longer impenetrable.

Pentagon admits rejection of ICC arrest warrants has no legal basis

A Pentagon spokesperson admitted that the US's decision to reject the International Criminal Court's arrest warrants for Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Galant are not grounded in law and reiterated that the US doesn't believe the ICC has jurisdiction over Israel and Gaza. Neither the US or Israel are member states of the ICC.

MEMO   November 22, 2024