The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants, before the ceasefire between Israel to Hezbollah, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel’s war against Hamas.
At first glance, this might seem like a commitment to justice. But a closer look reveals a troubling reality: The ICC’s failure to grasp the complexities of asymmetric warfare and its double standards for democracies combating terrorism.
Hamas’s October 7 massacre – the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust – was an act of sheer barbarity. Over 1,200 people were slaughtered, including 46 Americans, and more than 200 others were abducted. Hamas’s assault on Israeli civilians was not just an attack on Israel but an assault on humanity itself. The organization’s explicit goal is the eradication of Israel and its tactics – targeting civilians, holding hostages, and using human shields – are the hallmarks of a terrorist organization.
In response, Israel declared war on Hamas, not on the Palestinian people. Unlike classic wars between countries, this war pits a democracy committed to international law against a terrorist group embedded within a civilian populations. To conflate the two – as the ICC has done – is to ignore the moral and legal distinctions between them.
Israel’s conduct in this war has been characterized by restraint and adherence to international norms as much as it can. Despite Hamas’s abuse of humanitarian aid and its use of civilian areas as launchpads for attacks, Israel continues to provide food, medicine, and essentials to Gaza’s civilians. Israeli soldiers risk their lives to minimize harm to noncombatants – a moral standard unparalleled in modern warfare. Meanwhile, Hamas has denied hostages medical treatment, starved them, and executed some US citizens, including Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
ICC's ruling will affect antisemitism
Contrast this with how other democracies have acted during wartime. During World War II, the Allies declared war on Germany, not just on the Nazi regime as Israel did by declaring a war only on Hamas. Imagine the US being required to assist Al-Qaeda following the September 11 terror attacks. Yet Israel is held to an impossible standard, expected to protect the very population that celebrates its destruction – while enduring the wrath of global criticism.
The ICC reeks of bias. While arrest warrants were also issued for dead Hamas leaders such as Mohammad Deif, the court ignored living leaders including Mohammed Sinwar, who helped plan the October 7 attack and who remains a central figure in Hamas’s ongoing aggression. Worse, the ICC equated Israel’s efforts to defend its citizens with Hamas’s deliberate targeting of civilians. This moral equivalence is not just unjust – it emboldens terrorism.President Joe Biden has rightly condemned the ICC’s actions as “outrageous,” emphasizing the absurdity of equating a democratic state with a terrorist organization.
If international bodies are to hold Israel accountable for the lives of Palestinian civilians, then they must also demand that Hamas adhere to humanitarian law. Anything less rewards terror and undermines the very principles these institutions claim to uphold.
The ICC’s ruling not only undermines Israel’s moral standing but also risks far-reaching consequences. It is likely to fuel antisemitism worldwide, as narratives equating Israel’s self-defense with war crimes are weaponized by extremist groups.
Moreover, it jeopardizes efforts to prevent a broader conflict. Hezbollah, watching Israel’s growing international isolation, may see this as an opportunity to escalate hostilities in northern Israel, believing that the ICC’s ruling has pushed Israel into a corner. This perception could derail delicate negotiations for a ceasefire, further destabilizing the region.
The ruling highlights an urgent need for reform. Democracies combating terrorism require clear, consistent international standards that acknowledge the realities of asymmetric warfare. If the ICC cannot meet this challenge, its legitimacy as a judicial body is in question.
The decision, rather than fostering accountability and justice, has instead sown the seeds of greater instability and emboldened those who seek to destroy peace and democracy.
Israel’s fight against Hamas is not just about its own survival; it’s a test of whether the international community can uphold justice in the face of terror. The ICC has failed that test. In issuing these arrest warrants, it also risks fueling further conflict.If it wants to demonstrate moral clarity, the ICC must rescind these warrants in light of Israel’s declared intention to contest them. Anything less undermines the principles of justice and emboldens terrorism, further destabilizing a region yearning for peace.
Dr. Liram Koblentz-Stenzler is a senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at Reichman University, and a visiting scholar at Brandeis University. Follow her on LinkedIn.
Bradley Martin is the executive director of the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @ByBradleyMartin.