Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant: Justice, Politics, or Selective Action?

On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif. The court stated that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant had “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival.” The charges relate to alleged actions during the ongoing conflict, with the ICC asserting that these actions violated international law concerning the treatment of civilians in conflict zones.

In addition, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan sought warrants for three senior Hamas leaders—Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh—on similar charges. Sinwar and Haniyeh have since been reported killed, and Israel also claims to have killed Deif. However, the court’s pre-trial chamber stated it would “continue to gather information” to verify his death. Israel also faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest UN court, which, like the ICC, is based in The Hague.

Israel’s Defiance: Rejecting ICC’s Authority and Jurisdiction

Keeping up with its stubbornness, Israel has rejected the ICC’s authority, citing its non-signatory status under the Rome Statute, which governs the court. Since the ICC’s decision was announced, Israeli officials have strongly criticised the arrest warrants, with Israeli Transportation Minister Miri Regev calling them “modern anti-Semitism in the guise of justice.” Israel’s closest ally, the United States, has also voiced its support for the country. The White House stated that it is collaborating with Israel to formulate a response to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. A spokesperson for the Biden administration further emphasised that it disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction over the case.

Also See: Arrest Warrants Issued for Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif

Behind the Curtain: Israel’s Covert Campaign Against the ICC

If Israel rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction, why has it spent nearly a decade manipulating its decisions?

An investigation by the Guardian and the Israeli-based magazines +972 and Local Call reveals that Israel has waged a covert “war” against the court, using intelligence agencies to surveil, hack, and pressure ICC officials.

Israeli agents intercepted communications of key ICC figures, including Prosecutor Karim Khan and his predecessor Fatou Bensouda. In some cases, Israel allegedly employed threats, including Mossad chief Yossi Cohen’s reported intimidation of Bensouda before her 2021 investigation into Israeli actions in Palestine.

The surveillance campaign continued into recent months, giving Israeli leaders advance knowledge of the ICC’s actions. In one instance, an intercepted communication suggested that Khan, while considering arrest warrants against Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, faced significant pressure from the U.S. Despite Israel’s objections, Khan moved forward with warrants, while warning against any attempts to interfere with the court.

In the midst of this, Karim Khan faces sexual misconduct allegations, which some speculate may be part of a broader smear campaign against him, potentially linked to Israel’s long-standing efforts to undermine the ICC. While Khan has not directly accused Israel, he has acknowledged the significant threats and attacks targeting him and the court recently.

Global Divide: Reactions to the ICC’s Bold Move

The United States, Argentina and Hungary criticized the ICC’s decision, deeming it illegitimate or biased. Canada, the European Union, and several European nations like the Netherlands and Ireland supported the ICC’s mandate, emphasizing respect for international law. South Africa, Turkey, and Amnesty International welcomed the warrants for Netanyahu as a step toward justice, while some countries like Austria and Switzerland acknowledged legal obligations despite reservations.

The Effectiveness of ICC Warrants: Will They Lead to Justice?

While arrest warrants have been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant, the real question is whether these warrants will be effective or follow the pattern of previous cases.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has functioned as a permanent court of last resort for prosecuting individuals accused of some of the world’s most severe atrocities. It has charged figures such as former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and most recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The decision by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to seek arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leaders involved in the October 7th attack is historic. It marks the first time an ICC prosecutor has sought warrants against leaders of a close Western ally, highlighting the significant geopolitical ramifications of this action.

However, Israel maintains that, as a non-signatory to the Rome Statute, it is not bound by the ICC’s jurisdiction. The U.S. has also firmly rejected the ICC’s authority, with a National Security Council spokesperson stating that Washington “fundamentally rejects” the warrants and is “deeply concerned by the Prosecutor’s rush” in seeking them.

Trump 2.0: A New Era for US-Israel Relations?

In the final weeks of the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Donald Trump expressed sympathy for Arab American and Muslim voters upset by U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon. In Dearborn, Michigan, Trump promised to resolve the Middle East conflict, claiming he would address issues exacerbated by the Biden administration. “During my Administration, we had peace in the Middle East, and we will have peace again very soon!” Trump wrote on social media.

However, after winning the U.S. elections, there seems to be a shift in what Trump promised viz-a-viz Middle East. While the coming months would better shed light on his Middle East policy, his current nominees for key administration and cabinet positions send a chilling signal. Trump has nominated Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, strong supporters of Israel.

Marco Rubio, a longtime foreign policy hawk and strong supporter of Israel, has been nominated for Secretary of State. Throughout his career, Rubio has consistently advocated for unwavering support for Israel, emphasizing the nation’s right to defend itself and criticizing the Palestinian leadership. In response to the October 7 attacks on Israel, he called for the complete eradication of Hamas. Similarly, Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, has been a vocal advocate for Israel, even endorsing controversial views like demolishing the Al-Aqsa Mosque for a “Third Temple.” Mike Huckabee, nominated for Ambassador to Israel, has expressed his support for Israeli settlements in the West Bank and denied Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. Elise Stefanik, nominated for UN Ambassador, has been a staunch critic of UNRWA and has called Israel’s war on Gaza a moral crusade. Mike Waltz, nominated as National Security Adviser, has supported Israel’s stance on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and praised Israeli actions against Iran. These appointments suggest no major shift in the U.S.-Israel relations, despite Trump’s rhetoric.

Meanwhile, the war in Gaza continues to drive civilian casualties, with at least 43,799 killed since the conflict began in October 2023. A recent report from a United Nations special committee found that Israel’s methods in the Palestinian enclave were “consistent with genocide“. However, the rules-based international order has had little impact on these casualties, as trade and economic interests have long overshadowed principles of humanity and compassion.