Jakarta, IO – As the world watches the ongoing clash between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the International Criminal Court (ICC), the intersection of justice, politics, and international law has never been more pronounced. Netanyahu’s fervent rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction over alleged war crimes in Palestinian territories raises critical questions about accountability, sovereignty, and the pursuit of justice in a deeply divided region.
The ICC’s decision to investigate potential war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip has sparked fierce opposition from Netanyahu’s government. Israel, along with its allies, argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction in this matter, as Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the court. Netanyahu has gone as far as to label the ICC’s actions as “pure anti-Semitism,” claiming bias against Israel.
However, the ICC maintains that it has jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine based on the referral by the State of Palestine, which was recognized as a non-member observer state by the United Nations General Assembly in 2012. This legal argument underscores the complexity of the situation, where competing claims to statehood and sovereignty collide with the pursuit of justice for victims of alleged crimes.
Netanyahu’s defiance of the ICC reflects a broader trend of skepticism towards international institutions and norms in Israeli politics. With domestic support for Netanyahu’s hardline stance against perceived threats to Israeli security, including international scrutiny of military actions, the Prime Minister is leveraging nationalist sentiment to rally public opinion against the ICC’s investigation. This strategy not only reinforces Netanyahu’s political base but also deflects attention from pressing domestic issues, including corruption allegations and a polarized coalition government.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s confrontation with the ICC underscores the broader challenges facing the international community in addressing conflicts in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with its complex historical, religious, and territorial dimensions, defies easy solutions. Attempts to hold perpetrators of alleged war crimes accountable often become entangled in geopolitics, with powerful actors wielding influence to protect their interests.
While Netanyahu’s government rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction, it is crucial to recognize the importance of accountability and justice in resolving conflicts and fostering long-term peace. International law provides a framework for addressing violations of human rights and humanitarian law, regardless of the political sensitivities involved. By challenging the ICC’s authority, Netanyahu risks undermining the credibility of international justice mechanisms and perpetuating impunity for alleged crimes.
Moreover, Netanyahu’s stance risks exacerbating tensions with the Palestinian leadership and further entrenching the status quo of conflict and occupation. By dismissing the ICC’s investigation as biased and illegitimate, Netanyahu forecloses the possibility of meaningful dialogue and reconciliation with the Palestinian people. Instead, he reinforces a narrative of victimhood and exceptionalism that hinders the prospects for a just and lasting peace in Palestine.
In the meantime, the Biden administration’s stating it does not support the possibility of the ICC issuing arrest warrants is not surprising for two reasons. First and foremost, the influence of the Israeli lobby in US politics is formidable. Second, for various reasons the United States is not a member of the ICC and does not want to set a precedent for being supportive of the ICC, especially in a case involving an American ally.
Read: China’s Looming Food Crisis
What transpires next is somewhat predictable. If the ICC does indeed issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and/or his circle inside the war cabinet, it is a sure bet Netanyahu will claim Israel is being victimized. At the same time it would lend tremendous moral legitimacy to the pro-Palestine movement on US college campuses and elsewhere, essentially making it much more difficult for pro-Israeli figures to argue that the protestors are anti-semitic.
Would arrest warrants change the current course of the war under Netanyahu, perhaps making him decide to let in more significant amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza and not attack Rafa? It is possible, but Netanyahu has always been a defiant figure. Netanyahu has already said he denounces the ICC and won’t allow it to affect Israel’s so-called right to defend itself.
Yet, at the same time, Netanyahu and those around him must calculate that more civilian deaths would instigate the ICC to intensify its investigations of war crimes. If so and we see Israel changing the ways in which it prosecutes the war in Gaza. then the ICC will have played an important role, not only in retrospective justice, but also as a deterrent for future war crimes.
James Van Zorge is a Business consultant in Indonesia that has worked for the Harvard Institute for International Development, Food and Agriculture Organization, McKinsey & Co., and A.T.Kearney’s Global Business Policy Institute. He completed his BA in International Relations, summacum laude, at the State University of New York at Albany, and he holds a Masters of Public Policy, International Economics, from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.