For years, we were told the International Criminal Court in The Hague recognized Israel’s judicial system as impartial and a faithful representation of international law. Decisions by Israel’s Supreme Court and prosecutors have often sparked outrage among IDF officers and politicians, as they were seen as unjustified and only necessary to shield soldiers from the ICC’s reach.
One example is the July investigation into alleged abuse at the Sde Teiman detention facility. Military police arrested nine soldiers on suspicion of abusing a Hamas operative from the Nukhba Force. Attorney Ephraim Damari, representing the soldiers, criticized Chief Military Prosecutor Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, accusing her of targeting soldiers and demanding the case be closed.
“This operative is one of the most brutal terrorists Israel has known, a Hamas platoon commander involved in heinous acts of murder across multiple kibbutzim,” Damari said.
“His testimony is inexplicably being given weight over that of our soldiers.” He added that prosecutors, in a disturbing move, referred to the terrorist as a “Hamas police officer” in legal documents, a euphemism Damari derided as an affront to justice.
Adding to public outrage, a July court ruling mandated state-funded legal representation for over 100 Nukhba terrorists. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir condemned the decision, with Levin announcing his ministry would not finance attorneys for terrorists. Apparently, even these steps by Israel’s prosecutors were not enough for the ICC.
Escalating criticism of the ICC’s actions
Political commentators have argued that a state commission investigating the October 7 attacks could have prevented ICC arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. However, critics question how such a commission would have influenced accusations against Israel stemming from actions post-October 7. Israel’s attorney-general condemned the ICC prosecutor’s decision, stating Israel is evaluating its legal options.
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan has accused Israel of war crimes, including “starving a population.” Yet, since the conflict began, Israel has facilitated the entry of 58,000 trucks carrying over 1.3 million tons of food, medicine, and other supplies into Gaza – far exceeding humanitarian requirements. Hamas has seized and monetized much of this aid, further funding terrorism.
In a politically charged move, the ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, alleging war crimes. Nations, including Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada, stated they would enforce the warrants, while Hungary and Argentina refused. The UK and Germany remain undecided.
US pushback against the ICC
The Biden administration issued an unprecedented statement opposing the ICC decision. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) warned nations against complying with the arrest warrants, calling the ICC a “kangaroo court” and its prosecutor, Karim Khan, “a zealot.”
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced legislation proposing sanctions against countries supporting the ICC, threatening economic retaliation. “These warrants threaten not just Israel but US sovereignty,” Graham said, predicting bipartisan support for the legislation.
The US has precedent for such measures. In 2020, then-president Trump imposed sanctions on ICC personnel after attempts to investigate US troops in Afghanistan, a move that effectively ended the probe.
The bigger picture
The ICC’s actions jeopardize Israeli leaders, senior defense officials, and IDF personnel. The court operates as a tool for Israel’s adversaries, undermining its right to self-defense and emboldening Iran and its proxies.
Karim Khan, facing allegations of sexual misconduct and investigation tampering, falsely assured Israel he would not issue arrest warrants without first allowing a response to accusations.
A Telegraph article earlier this week highlighted the broader implications of the ICC’s decision, stating: “The accusation of war crimes against Israel’s leaders raises profound questions about democracies’ ability to defend themselves.” Since Hamas’ brutal October 7 attack, Israel has engaged in self-defense measures aligned with international law, targeting terrorist infrastructure.
Would Britain and its allies have prevailed in World War II had Winston Churchill faced the specter of war crimes charges?
The ICC’s decision rewards extremism, undermines Middle Eastern stability, and emboldens those threatening Israel’s existence. It is a stark reminder of the challenges democracies face in countering evolving global threats.
The writer is the honorary consul general of Nauru, deputy dean of the Diplomatic Consular Corps, president of the Israeli Radio Broadcasting Association, and vice president of the Ambassadors Club.