Международният наказателен съд – още една жертва на 7 октомври – haroonabadvital.com
In 1998, when the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted, the head of the Israeli delegation, Judge Eli Nathan, expressed his hope and concern for the future of the court. As a Holocaust survivor and long-time humanitarian activist, he expressed his hope that the court would truly do its part in ending impunity for the most serious crimes.
But having witnessed the disturbing politicization of the court’s statute during negotiations – including the deliberate inclusion of provisions specifically intended to target and focus attention on Israel – he fears that the court’s goals will be distorted for political purposes. Even as he explains that Israel unfortunately cannot join such a politicized law, Nathan expresses his hope that common sense will prevail and that the court will serve “the noble purposes it was created to achieve.”
A quarter century later, it is clear that Judge Nathan’s fears, not his hopes, have been realized.
Instead of ending impunity for serious crimes, the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for the former prime minister of Israel and the former defense minister, along with a senior Hamas figure (apparently deceased), represents a harmful gift to the terrorist organization.
It is not surprising that Hamas issued an official statement welcoming the arrest warrants shortly after the chamber’s decision was issued.
This would create a strange juxtaposition between the killers and rapists of October 7, and the victims defending themselves against Hamas, which has vowed to commit such massacres “again and again.” In fact, the court went beyond the equation and accused Israel of launching deliberate attacks against the civilian population, but not Hamas, which, in addition to the October 7 massacres, continues to fire thousands of rockets at Israel.
The arrest warrant issued against Netanyahu divided Europeans
Issuing orders also ignores a basic principle of the court’s statute – which is the principle of complementarity.
It stipulates that the court can only have jurisdiction when the domestic courts are unable or unwilling to act. It is clear that Hamas has no intention of investigating its atrocities. On the contrary, this organization views every civilian victim – whether Palestinian or Israeli – as a kind of corrupt success. On the other hand, Israel has a strong legal system that has repeatedly proven that it is able and willing to investigate violations of international law and punish their perpetrators.
Israel’s commitment to upholding the rule of law was even praised by the ICC Prosecutor when he visited Israel after the massacre in October 2023. He noted that “Israel has trained lawyers who advise leaders and a robust system designed to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.”
The alleged crimes also reflect a disconnect from reality.
The orders accuse Israel of deliberately starving Gaza’s residents by imposing a “total blockade,” but they do not mention the more than 1 million tons of food, medical supplies and other forms of aid provided to nearly 60,000 people. The truck, even as Hamas continues to hold more than 100 hostages incommunicado, fires rockets into Israel and steals aid and supplies intended for the Palestinians.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that the prosecutor tried to reinforce his decision by pressing for arrest warrants and to hide these discrepancies by referring the evidence to a committee of “neutral experts.” The court insists that the testimonies and expertise provided are “confidential,” but if they are selected according to the same criteria as the expert committee, this raises serious reasons for concern.
The “neutral” committee includes many members who have previously publicly made damning allegations against Israel. But what is even more troubling are their areas of expertise. Many of them are presented as human rights lawyers, but almost none of them have experience in military affairs and the laws of armed conflict.
| The result is a commission that has failed in the crucial task of discussing what is necessary and permissible in defending against persistent missile attacks and brutal hostage-taking with military expertise. |
Had such expertise been included in the commission, it would have offered a very different perspective, such as that of John Spencer, head of the Center for the Study of Urban Warfare at the Modern War Institute at West Point: “I have never seen an army that would take such measures to care for the enemy’s civilian population; Especially while fighting the enemy in the same buildings at the same time. In fact, according to my analysis, Israel has taken more precautions than any other country to prevent civilian casualties in history.
At the 1998 ICC conference, Justice Eli Nathan expressed his greatest fear about the court – that it might become “another political forum exploited for political purposes by an irresponsible group of states at their own political discretion.”
Sadly, the Court itself has only just moved one step closer to this dismal prediction.
The “Analysis” column presents different points of view, and the opinions expressed do not necessarily coincide with the editorial position of “Dnevnik” magazine.
