Israel’s isolation appears to be growing amid growing criticism following the deadly attack on a displaced persons camp in Rafah on Sunday, and a subsequent attack on Tuesday.
Two international legal developments in the past week have also divided the international community.
On Friday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling ordering Israel to end its ongoing attack and withdraw its troops from Rafah.
On May 20, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested arrest warrants for senior Israeli and Hamas officials.
The ICC’s request for an arrest warrant sparked angry protests, not only in Tel Aviv and from Hamas spokesmen, but also in Washington and London – two capitals that had fully supported the ICC when She had requested arrest warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria. Lvova-Belova following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
For the people of Gaza, whether or not the rules-based international order comes to their aid is of little importance in the face of the deadly consequences of Israel’s daily aggressions.
Is the ICC “built for Africa and thugs like Putin”?
In an English-language video, likely released in the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused ICC Prosecutor General Karim Khan of being one of the “great anti-Semites of modern times,” comparing him to judges of Nazi Germany. .
Hamas was equally virulent, saying Khan’s demands were an attempt “to equate the victim with the executioner by issuing arrest warrants against a number of Palestinian resistance leaders.”
The United States is reportedly considering sanctions against ICC officials, in the same way it imposed them in 2020, before the current administration lifted them.
The ICC mission claims to be impartial, but Khan told CNN that an anonymous official told him the ICC was “built for Africa and for thugs like Putin.”
“The broader attacks on the ICC emanating from the US and UK over the past week…only reinforce the damaging narrative that the ICC is an exercise in selective justice driven entirely by politics and carries out its mandate with a “bias for Africa”. ‘, or is simply a new incarnation of ‘victors’ justice,'” said Michael Becker, professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, who previously worked at the ICJ.
“The values that underpin the ICC do not allow for one set of rules for democratically elected leaders and another set of rules for everyone else.”
Under the Rome Statute, which created the ICC in 1998, the 124 signatories have a duty to arrest anyone wanted by the court if present on their territory. Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the statute, while Palestine was recognized in 2015 as falling under the jurisdiction of the ICC, allowing it to investigate violations carried out on Palestinian territory.
Justice at a standstill
Some states may consider applying Article 98 of the Rome Statute used to establish the ICC, which invokes the precedence of international norms and law, thus appearing to grant immunity to heads of state, in order to avoid having to arrest Netanyahu.
However, in 2019 the ICC Appeals Chamber appeared to interpret Article 98 to mean that states cannot invoke immunity rules under international law to avoid executing such warrants in relation to the current arrest warrant against former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
This suggests that Article 98 should provide no refuge for Netanyahu if he travels to an ICC member country.
“In some ways, the ICC’s decision to seek an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and (Defense Minister Yoav) Gallant suggests that the old complaint that the ICC is a Western instrument is no longer entirely valid. valid fact,” said political science professor Gerry Simpson. international law at the London School of Economics.
Simpson added that for a long time the Western view has been: “It’s a court for others.”
It remains to be seen whether the warrants will be granted or executed.
However, while the United States has repeatedly shown itself willing to use its veto in the UN Security Council to halt any coercive measures against Israel, Gaza’s best hope may remain “the order based on rules” previously adopted by many world leaders who are now working to clarify legal rules. obstacles in the path of Israel.
The International Court of Justice
After Friday’s ICJ order sowed some optimism in Gaza and among countries working to end the assault on the enclave, continued Israeli bombing of Rafah came as a shock.
According to the order, “Israel must immediately end its military offensive and any other actions in the Rafah governorate” that could result in “the physical destruction” of the Palestinians – referring to what constitutes genocide under the international law.
However, Israel described it as “ambiguous”, contrasting sharply with the views expressed by much of the rest of the world.
When asked whether the United States supports the Israeli interpretation of the ICJ ruling and whether it would enforce possible ICC arrest warrants, a spokesperson for the US State Department said to Tel Aviv Tribune that US policy – including several mentions of “red lines” on Rafah that stopped no attacks – has “remained clear and consistent”.
The ICJ’s findings also indicate that “the current situation arising from the Israeli military offensive in Rafah” creates a risk of harm that could compromise the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention – language that could be interpreted as ordering a complete halt to the offensive. in Rafah.
However, the inclusion of the word “may” and the intent to “cause physical destruction in whole or in part” did the heavy lifting in Israel’s reading of the order, according to Geoffrey Nice, who was the principal prosecutor in war crimes trial. of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague.
“He is clearly not ordering a complete cessation of military activity,” he wrote to Tel Aviv Tribune. “He is not saying that Israel cannot defend itself or attempt to recover the hostages. What he says must be read precisely and without wanting to reach a particular conclusion one way or the other.
“The Court focused on what may constitute a genocidal outcome rather than – and without necessarily being motivated by – genocidal intent,” he said, explaining the different interpretations of the text.
