The International Criminal Court decision to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant is an important indicator of the solidification of international opinion against the openly genocidal state of Israel. At the end of the post, we have extracted the key section of the ICC’s press release. It describes how the basis for the administering the warrants is the systematic starvation, cutting off of electricity, and withholding of medical supplies to the population. Note that his site described Israel’s conduct as genocide on October 21, 2023, long before it was fashionable to call out Israel’s crime against humanity for what they are, based on Israel’s decision to cut off electricity to Gaza permanently.
Two Palestinian leaders has also been targeted by the ICC prosecutor for arrest warrants, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, but both are dead. The ICC did issue a warrant for Hamas military leader Mohammed Dief even though Israel maintains they have killed him.
The ICC’s raison de’etre is to step in when government legal systems are too corrupt or too decrepit to prosecute major crimes by officials. So these arrest warrants are a stern rebuke to the entire state going whole hog for the murder of Palestinian civilians. In fact, the notion that the ICC existed only to go after what the Collective West deemed to be dirtbag leaders was the argument the US used to try to bully the ICC prosecutor:
The ICC just issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Watch this ICC prosecutor exposing how US officials lectured him that the institution was “built for thugs like Putin” back in May 2024. Before, no US ally has ever been targeted by the ICC in its entire history. pic.twitter.com/CpcwjPzIwo
— red. (@redstreamnet) November 21, 2024
The US harassment was likely the big factor in the ICC taking so long after the prosecutor’s request to issue the warrants (by contrast, it oddly took only a month in the case of the Vladimir Putin, for the crime of removing children from of a war zone, despite the absence of complaints by parents).
The practical impact of this warrant is limited. Many UN members, notably the US, Russia, and Israel, are not parties to the ICC and thus do not enforce ICC warrants (see here for a long discussion, using Israel and Palestine as the focus, about the ICC’s jurisdiction over non-party states). One wonders if any member of the EU (all are members of the ICC) save Ireland would arrest Bibi if, say, his plane landed unexpectedly there. The typical intelligence-insulting bluster by Netanyahu, which will be take seriously by too many in the US and is already being amplified in the UK, suggest the UK wound not enforce the warrants.
The putrid Guardian has chosen to report the ICC’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu by highlighting the war criminal’s ludicrous claim that the arrest warrants are ‘antisemitic’.
If the Guardian attached value to the lives of Israel’s victims, it would have… pic.twitter.com/lXudg7nu0u
— Dimitri Lascaris (@dimitrilascaris) November 21, 2024
Note that the Jerusalem Post’s headline was more “fair and balanced” than the Guardian’s:
Ha! Just after ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, State Dept cancels briefing for today. https://t.co/MWtatix1qJ pic.twitter.com/Jo7KZ7cUme
— Sam Husseini (@samhusseini) November 21, 2024
A reminder today, as US politicians including the President fall over one another to attack the ICC over arrest warrants and defend Netanyahu… pic.twitter.com/0gKBMV8WWs
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 21, 2024
But when the ICC prosecutor first applied for the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, some EU members said they would enforce them:
JUST IN:
🇩🇪🇮🇱 Germany joins France and Norway. Netanyahu will be arrested if he sets foot in Germany.
Germany would “of course” execute a potential ICC arrest warrant against Israel’s Netanyahu, the govt spokesman says. pic.twitter.com/rkfuV2NGEM
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) May 22, 2024
France reaffirms its commitment:
France’s foreign ministry spokesman says that France’s reaction to the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be in line with the court’s statutes. pic.twitter.com/xriQr9Nfqc
— Shibley Telhami (@ShibleyTelhami) November 21, 2024
The Netherlands joins in:
Netherlands says ready to act upon ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahuhttps://t.co/X18hFB9jaI
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) November 21, 2024
South Africa quickly praised the ICC action. From Inside Politics:
“These actions mark a significant step towards justice for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Palestine,” the International Relations and Cooperation Department said on Thursday.
“South Africa reaffirms its commitment to international law and urges all state parties to act in accordance with their obligations in the Rome Statute. We call on the global community to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability for human rights violations.”
Unfortunately, though this is yet another confirmation that Israel is a rogue state, only the US, by cutting off arms, or the Axis of Resistance can stop the slaughter of Palestinians and increasingly, Lebanese. And while the latter’s noose is slowly tightening, the pace is not fast enough to save many lives.
______
From the ICC press release:
Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant….
Warrants of arrest
The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.
The arrest warrants are classified as ‘secret’, in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing. Moreover, the Chamber considers it to be in the interest of victims and their families that they are made aware of the warrants’ existence.
At the outset, the Chamber considered that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Chamber recalled that, in a previous composition, it already decided that the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Chamber declined to use its discretionary proprio motu powers to determine the admissibility of the two cases at this stage. This is without prejudice to any determination as to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases at a later stage….
Alleged crimes
The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied. This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The Chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.
The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.
The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.
Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.
The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.
The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.
In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.
The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.
Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.
