Dear Representative Jared Golden:

Your decision to vote in favor of sanctioning the International Criminal Court of Justice, (ICC) which had ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, was dismaying. This recent vote to sanction the ICC by Representatives of Congress erodes the ability of the high court to adhere to the principles of “ International Humanitarian Law, whose purpose is the reduce suffering during war”. 

The legislators passed this so-called “illegitimate Court Counteraction act” by a vote of 243-140, mostly supported by 198 Republican legislators. The question is why you, Rep Golden, felt it necessary to join this charade in support of a far-right regime in the Israeli Knesset, led by a man who is roundly detested by most citizens of Israel.

The intent of the legislation was to sanction anyone who assists the ICC in its attempts…to prosecute a citizen of an allied country” (ie Israel). In this case, it involved posting arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for their leadership in promoting genocide in Gaza.

Perhaps it would be to your benefit to do some serious reading on the horrors taking place in Gaza, with 46,500 civilians having been killed, including 16,000 children, by Israel bombs, supplied by the U.S.. 

Several highly regarded Israeli historians have written about the plight of the Palestinians which has now fallen upon extreme destitution, as most of  their homes, hospitals and schools have been destroyed by a continual barrage of  bombing. In addition, even many tents, inhabited by refugee families in  camps, have been bombed.

The Israeli military  (IDF) is being urged on by the extremist  leadership in the Knesset in a process of “ethnic cleansing”.  Israeli historians have taken note of this attempt to exterminate a population, such historians as Avi Shlaim, an Oxford University scholar raised in Israel who served with the IDF; Shlomo Sand who teaches in Tel Aviv University and has written books including “The Invention of the Jewish People”; Ilan Pappe, an historian teaching at Reading University in the UK who has written “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”.

Rep Golden, with the above in mind, it appears  that you are making decisions based on a very limited understanding of the history of Palestine. Are you aware that 5-6 million acres were expropriated from 750,000 Palestinians in 1947, forcing them into homelessness, and into becoming refugees, many having no choice but to move to Gaza.

It is shameful that you take the part of a right -wing cabal, led by a man totally lacking in empathy, not only for the thousands of children being killed by the IDF bombing, but also, until recently, for his unwillingness to negotiate in good faith, for the release of  Israeli captives. 

“Justice in Chains,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

There are over 160 organizations in Palestine/Israel involving hundreds of thousands of people devoted to building a shared society of cooperation, justice, equality and mutual understanding. Such groups as this are among a significant number of Israelis who are opposed to this genocidal bombing and killing that is taking place in Gaza.

Walls of separation between Palestinians and Israelis have, unfortunately, become a major issue.  Such walls are a form of “Apartheid” which our admirable former President, Jimmy Carter addressed in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”. He noted that Israel’s “construction of settlements” has been the primary obstacle to a comprehensive peace agreement. In addition, he wrote: “some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and [then] justify their subjugation and persecution [thus creating a sense] of hopelessness among Palestinians”

I would hope that you had kept  in mind President Carter’s words  when you voted for this repugnant piece of legislation: to sanction the ICC (International Criminal Court) indicates that you did not reflect very deeply on the issues. Instead you supported far-right leaders in the Israeli government. The question that is paramount in my mind is that you might have been  persuaded by financial considerations. After all,  you received from the “American Israel Public Affairs Cmte”, (AIPAC) the sum of  $375,091, making Israel lobbyists your top Contributor for 2023-2024. (as reported by “opensecrets.org/members of congress).  

It may be worthwhile for you to reflect on  the ancestral home of many residents of Maine: Ireland, which recently filed a “declaration with the International Court of Justice (ICC) with their intention to intervene in [the] genocide case against Israel’s tactics in its war on Gaza. Ireland believes that every state, of the 189 nations who have signed the Genocide Convention, “has the right to intervene in the proceedings” based upon the principles expressed in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

The essence of Ireland ‘s declaration is that “the crime [of genocide] may also be committed where a perpetrator– regardless of his or her purpose – knows (or should know) that the natural and probable consequence of these acts is either to destroy or contribute to the destruction of the protected group [ie Palestinians] , in whole or part, as such, and [yet] proceeds regardless.”

In conclusion, you still have an opportunity to develop a sense of fairness and justice for all, and not to allow yourself to  be swayed by political contributions meant to influence your vote on crucial issues relating to Palestine and Israel.

The Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 63, provides for the notification of all member states about procedures regarding conventions that might affect them, and that “every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings.” In this case, the relevant document is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

The Irish intervention addresses the difficulty of proving that officials of a state have deliberately set themselves a goal of wiping out another people in whole or in part. It says, “Ireland respectfully submits that the perpetrator does not need to have, as his or her purpose, the commission of the crime of genocide when committing any one or more of the material elements of the crime. The crime may also be committed where a perpetrator – regardless of his or her purpose – knows (or should know) that the natural and probable consequence of these acts is either to destroy or contribute to the destruction of the protected group, in whole or part, as such, and proceeds regardless.”

That is, if a reasonable person can foresee that dropping 500-lb. bombs on residential apartment complexes, destroying water pipes, destroying most of the hospitals, and making people move from one tent camp to another once they were rendered homeless, would have a genocidal effect, and nevertheless committed these acts, the person is guilty of genocide even if there isn’t a smoking gun document of intent.

Ireland’s document concludes, “It is evident from the drafting history of the Convention that the term intent is not limited to the purpose of the perpetrator, but can also comprehend knowledge of the foreseeable consequence of the act committed.”

It is sort of like if a person kept shooting a gun in the general direction of a crowd of people, and ends up killing someone, the shooter would be guilty of murder even if there was no specific intent to kill that individual, because a reasonable person could foresee that shooting the gun repeatedly in the direction of a crowd would eventually result in a death.

Ireland’s Declaration of Intervention also tackles the difficulty that genocides often take place in the context of war-fighting, so that it is difficult to determine whether what appear to be genocidal acts are simply “collateral damage,” the unfortunate civilian deaths that inadvertently attend any battle.

The Declaration quotes the ICJ itself on one way to resolve this condundrum: “The Court restated this test where it said that ‘for a pattern of conduct, that is to SllJJ, a consistent series of acts carried out over a specific period of time, to be accepted as evidence of genocidal intent, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent, that is to say, that it can only reasonably be understood as reflecting that intent [ … ]’

This can be characterised as the ‘only reasonable inference’ test.”

Photo by Roman Boed,
from PxHere.

Ireland points out that in the real world, actions can be taken for more than one purpose. That is, a country may kill large numbers of civilians while fighting a war both because that country is fighting a war and because it wants to destroy a group in whole or in part. The mere fact of war-fighting cannot be invoked to rule out genocidal intent.

The Declaration says, “Ireland submits that, in order to avoid the possibility of genocide being excluded in most, if not all, cases of anned conflict the application of the ‘only reasonable inference’ test clarifies that a pattern of conduct can only be fully explained as intended to destroy – at least in part – the protected group. In applying the test, Ireland respectfully submits that it is not necessary that the acts concerned should be exclusively intended to destroy the group but could also be committed with the intent of achieving one or more other objectives.”

The Irish cabinet made the decision to intervene at a cabinet meeting in early December. Deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs) Micheál Martin said then that:

“There has been a collective punishment of the Palestinian people through the intent and impact of military actions of Israel in Gaza, leaving 44,000 dead and millions of civilians displaced.

“By legally intervening in South Africa’s case, Ireland will be asking the ICJ to broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide by a State.

“We are concerned that a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimised.

“Ireland’s view of the Convention is broader and prioritises the protection of civilian life – as a committed supporter of the Convention, the government will promote that interpretation in its intervention in this case.”

He added on another occasion, “Fundamentally, Ireland is asking the court to broaden its interpretation of genocide within the Genocide Convention.”

Although the center-right Irish government has made it clear that it stands with South Africa in charging Israel with genocide in Gaza, the ICJ rules on such interventions give Ireland the position of adding to the deliberations. Article 82 of the Rules of the Court provide for signatories intervening in cases to engage in the “identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of which it considers to be in question” and to submit a list of documents in support of a case.

The humanitarian workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross witnessed tremendous atrocities during World War II, which violated the Hague Regulations of the early twentieth century as well as the 1929 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The ICRC proved a force in lobbying the post-war political establishment, led by the United States, to tighten and make more explicit the international law governing warfare.

As the full horror of the actions of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan became clear, many level-headed politicians and diplomats in Europe and the United States came to agree with the ICRC officials. Of course, the post-war steps taken to punish war crimes and legislate against their repetition excused the U.S. and its allies from any prosecution. Otherwise dropping atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaka would have have resulted in war crimes trials of Truman administration figures.

Out of this push back against the total war pursued in 1939-1945 came the United Nations and its Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1939. The International Court of Justice was formed to settle disputes among United Nations member states peacefully.

Another push for the “New Humanitarianism” came out of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and then the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1995-1998 dozens of countries crafted the Rome Statute as a charter for a new International Criminal Court, intended to allow for the trial of politicians who commit war crimes. It came into effect in 2002 and now has 124 signatories, out of the 193 countries in the United Nations. The US initially took part in the Rome deliberations but ultimately refused to sign.

The thrust of these developments is that humanitarian law and the law of war merged into International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and it has been given some teeth, though not very sharp ones. For the most part, it continued to be applied only to enemies of the United States and Western Europe, the wealthiest and most powerful victors of the Second World War.

One difficulty with the entire edifice, however, is that the post-war legislation put so much emphasis on “intent” in finding actors guilty of war crimes or genocide that the existing laws are difficult or impossible to deploy for the purpose of preventing genocide. In addition, so much latitude is given to war-fighting and its requirements that it is difficult to protect civilians.

The political elites of the United States have been ambivalent about these developments. Washington likes IHL when it can serve as a cudgel against its foes. Joe Biden and Antony Blinken jumped up and down for joy on March 17, 2023, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his war crimes in Ukraine. Note that neither Ukraine nor Russia are signatories to the Rome Statute, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction over Russian atrocities, either in Russia or Ukraine. It is true that Ukraine gave the ICC permission to make judgments about Russian IHL violations on Ukrainian soil. Still, the jurisdiction of the ICC here could be disputed. Biden and Blinken made no reference to this jurisdictional difficulty.

Washington, however, has dismissed and even sought to punish the primary institutions of International Humanitarian Law when they come after the United States or its partners, such as Israel. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put sanctions on the judges of the ICC for even thinking about looking into the behavior of US troops in Afghanistan.

Congress has also behaved erratically. The Leahy Act forbade the US to provide weaponry to states violating humanitarian law. But Congress has also considered imposing sanctions against the ICC.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice agreed to consider the case brought by South Africa against Israel for the commission of genocide in Gaza. South Africa then sought the equivalent of a preliminary injunction (“provisional measures”), seeking a ruling from the court forbidding the commission of acts by Israel constitutive of genocide while the ICJ considered the case (which is still ongoing). On January 26, 2024, the court ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide,” finding it “plausible” that Israel was committing such acts.

The court also ordered Israel to halt its invasion of Rafah in May 2024, saying Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Rafah was the last place in Gaza where the Israelis had not destroyed most of the infrastructure, and it was feared that if its population was driven elsewhere and civilian objects were reduced to rubble, the effects would be truly genocidal. These fears were later borne out when Israel’s government thumbed its nose at the court. It was this Israeli lawlessness that led Ireland, Norway and Spain to recognize the State of Palestine.

“International Criminal Court Undermined,” Digital, Midjoourney / IbisPaint, 2024

Then this summer the International Court of Justice ruled that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories (Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank) is in itself illegal.

On November 22, 2024, the International Court of Justice issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.

As a result, Netanyahu cannot attend the commemoration in January in Poland of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, for fear of being arrested by Polish authorities.

Thus far, the institutions of International Humanitarian Law are working as they should be.

The other development of the past year is more troubling. The United States, the most powerful country in the world, has repeatedly undermined these institutions. President Joe Biden flatly denied that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, as did Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The Biden administration rejected the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, even though Palestine became a UN non-state observer and acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015, and brought charges against Israel. The legal foundation for ICC jurisdiction in Palestine, including Gaza, is vastly more solid than its jurisdiction in Ukraine.

Yet the US cheered the ICC warrant for Putin, while decrying the warrant for Netanyahu. Members of Congress threatened the ICC judges with sanctions once again.

The US State Department viciously smeared Francesca Albanese. the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, as “antisemitic” for her straightforward reporting on what is going on in Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank.

On a weekly basis, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller danced around Israeli atrocities, saying Israel should investigate itself and letting the Netanyahu government dictate the terms of discourse. He acted, as well, as though the US was not resupplying Israeli arms and ammunition in real time and actively participating in the Gaza war crimes.

So this was our paradoxical reality in 2024. Key institutions of International Humanitarian Law finally stepped up to address the plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli genocide in Gaza, which was a substantial step forward for the international rule of law. But it was all undermined by the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

2024 was the year that the demand for impunity for Israel from those four countries broke International Humanitarian Law so badly that it is not clear it can survive.

The even bigger danger: The Israeli demand for impunity and the willing collaboration of traitors in Congress and elsewhere in the US government could act as the tip of the spear in breaking the US Constitution and ending the First Amendment.

(The Conversation) – What legal obligations do states have to fight climate change? Should high-emitting countries be held responsible for the harm they’ve caused? And should states safeguard the climate for future generations?

The international court of justice (ICJ) is considering similar questions to these in hearings ahead of issuing an advisory opinion on the obligations of states concerning climate change. Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries.

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and is concerned with states. It is not to be confused with the international criminal court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals. Both courts are based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Unlike court judgements, advisory opinions are not binding under international law. Yet, they can be instruments of preventive diplomacy and peace.

Often, people associate courts with a solely reactive approach to disputes and reparation of harms. For the ICJ this has meant, for instance, a 2018 order for Nicaragua to compensate Costa Rica after it damaged rainforests and wetlands in an unlawful incursion.

But courts can also play a critical role in preventing mass violations of human rights and injustices in the first place. For the ICJ, this might involve ruling that states have obligations to carry out due diligence before the approval of a new mine or dam. To fully realise our human rights, the ICJ must take this sort of preventive approach to climate change.

The ICJ faces a pivotal choice. It can either address climate change narrowly and reactively, or it could examine state obligations from a broader perspective.

That broader perspective might find that states are obliged to take full stewardship of the environment for both present and future generations. This would go beyond global climate change agreements.

The problem currently is that certain state actions (and inactions) may be considered sufficient under the UN’s Paris agreement, but that does not mean those states are complying with their duties to tackle climate change under international human rights law. Climate change and ecosystem degradation can, of course, violate a wide range of human rights. If the ICJ were to legally clarify that states do have climate obligations that go beyond the Paris agreement, that would represent a significant step forward in international law.

There are some precedents. For instance, the international tribunal for law of the sea (Itlos), through a recent advisory opinion of its own, has already recognised that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of marine pollution. States, it says, have specific legal obligations to address such pollution under the UN convention on the law of the sea.

The ICJ would also be building on the pioneering ideas of one of its former judges, Christopher Weeramantry of Sri Lanka. He argued that humanity is not in a position of dominance but is a trustee of the environment and that this carries weight as international customary norm.

Listen to scientists and traditional knowledge holders

Although some courts worldwide have used findings from the IPCC (a global scientific advisory body) in their climate-related rulings, these findings are yet to play a major role in the ICJ. However, the IPCC was explicitly mentioned in the UN general assembly resolution requesting the advisory opinion, and the court now has the opportunity to elevate these critical insights.

It should also factor in the IPCC’s less well-known sister organisation, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)). Unlike the climate panel, the biodiversity platform weaves together science, practical and traditional knowledge-backed insights.

Peace with nature

Another way the ICJ can foster prevention is to focus not only on the symptoms of climate change and ecosystem degradation – the hurricanes, the enforced migrations and so on – but on their root causes.

This includes issues like inequality. After all, small island states such as the Seychelles face disproportionate impacts from climate change, despite doing very little to cause it. At the UN general assembly, the representative of Seychelles argued that the ICJ’s advisory opinion can help put a spotlight on the obligation of states to ensure that people in all countries have a right to a healthy environment.

“Climate Change,” Digital, Midjourney, 2024

This preventive approach can help foster peace with nature – the theme of the 2024 UN biodiversity conference – and thereby peace among people. This would set a powerful example for other courts, like the human rights courts of Europe, Africa and the Americas. It could inspire them to specify international and regional obligations in a way that promotes environmental justice and peace.

Collective action for future generations

The court should also take seriously the concerns of future generations. There is a vibrant social movement aiming to advance ambitious, rights-based societal action to address the root causes of planetary challenges. Spearheaded by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, this campaign has united youth and children civil society organisations, nature conservation and human rights groups, and other groups forming the Alliance for a Climate Justice Advisory Opinion. The Vanuatu government added its support to this call through its leadership and collaboration within the wider UN membership.

The passing of the UN general assembly resolution requesting the ICJ’s advisory opinion is in itself an achievement showing that the ICJ is not solely the domain of senior international lawyers. Instead, it can become an intergenerational space where vibrant social movements can also contribute to transformative international law.

If the ICJ does take a preventive and systemic approach, it would be a turning point for global intergenerational and interspecies justice and peace. The world now waits to see whether the court will seize this critical opportunity.

Claudia Ituarte-Lima, Leader of the Human Rights and Environment Thematic Area at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Lund University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Court of Appeal in The Hague in February ordered the government to stop exporting components due to concerns that they would be used to violate international law in the Gaza war, prompting the government to say that it would appeal to the Supreme Court.

“According to the advocate general (of the Supreme Court), the Court of Appeal was justified in finding that there is a clear risk that Israel’s F-35 fighter jets are being used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law in the Gaza Strip,” the court’s advisor explained.

The Netherlands houses one of several regional warehouses of US-owned F-35 components, which are distributed to countries that request them, including Israel, which has requested at least one shipment since 7 October, 2023.

The Supreme Court said it would rule on the appeal as soon as possible, without giving a specific date.

br> Image by Military_Material from Pixabay

Human rights groups that brought the case against the state, including Oxfam Netherlands, welcomed the court’s recommendation.

“The government should wait no longer and change course. The complicity in the atrocious violence in Gaza needs to stop as quickly as possible,” the group urged in a statement.

Gaza officials confirmed the Israeli war has killed nearly 44,200 people and caused nearly all of Gaza’s population to be displaced at least once, while vast areas of the territory have been destroyed.

by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

But a term that many seem to agree on is that the warrants represent an earthquake, though many are doubtful that Netanyahu will actually see his day in court.

The pro-Palestine camp, which as of late represents the majority of humankind, is torn between disbelief, skepticism and optimism. It turned out that the international system has a pulse, after all, though faint, but is enough to rekindle hope that legal and moral accountability are still possible.

This mixture of feelings and strong language is a reflection of several important and interconnected experiences: one, the unprecedented extermination of a whole population which is currently being carried out by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza; two, the utter failure of the international community to stop the grisly genocide in the Strip; and, finally, the fact that the international legal system has historically failed to hold Israel, or any of the West’s allies anywhere, accountable to international law.

The real earthquake is the fact that this is the first time in the history of the ICC that a pro-western leader is held accountable for war crimes. Indeed, historically, the vast majority of arrest warrants, and actual detention of accused war criminals seemed to target the Global South, Africa in particular.

Israel, however, is not an ordinary “western” state. Zionism was a western-colonial invention, and the creation of Israel was only possible because of unhindered, die-hard western support.

Since its inception on the ruins of historic Palestine in 1948, Israel has served the role of the western-colonial citadel in the Middle East. The entire Israeli political discourse has been tailored and situated within western priorities and supposed values: civilisation, democracy, enlightenment, human rights and the like.

With time, Israel became largely an American project, embraced by American liberals and religious conservatives alike.

America’s religious crowds were motivated by the biblical notion that “whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.” The liberals, too, held Israel within a spiritual discourse, although disproportionately favoured the classification of Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East”, constantly emphasising the “special relationship”, the “unbreakable bond” and the rest.

Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the ICC’s indictment of Netanyahu, as a representative of the political establishment in Israel, and Gallant, as the leader of the military class, is also an indictment of the United States.

It is often reported that Israel would not have been able to carry on with its war – genocide – on Gaza without American military and political support. According to the investigative news website ProPublica, in the first year of the war, the US shipped over 50,000 tonnes of weaponry to Israel.

Mainstream American media and journalists are also culpable in that genocide. They elevated the now war criminals Netanyahu and Gallant, along with other Israeli political and military leaders, as if they were the defenders of a “civilised world” against the “barbarians”. Those in the conservative media circles portrayed them as if they were prophets doing God’s work against the supposed heathens of the South.

“ICC Warrant,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

They, too, have been indicted by the ICC, the kind of moral indictment, and “hard stigma”, that can never be eradicated.

When Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, originally filed for arrest warrants in May, many were in doubt, and justifiably so. The Israelis felt that their country commanded the needed support to disallow such warrants in the first place. They cited previous attempts, including a Belgian court case where victims of Israeli brutality in Lebanon attempted to hold former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accountable for the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Not only was the case dropped in 2003, but Belgium was pressured by the US to change its own laws so that they do not include universal jurisdiction in the case of genocide.

The Americans, too, were not too worried, as they were ready to punish ICC judges, defame Khan himself, and, according to a recent social media post by US Senator Tom Cotton, ready to “invade the Hague”.

In fact, this is not the first time that Americans, who are not signatories of the Rome Statute, thus not members of the ICC, flexed their muscles against those who merely attempted to enforce international law. In September 2020, the US government imposed sanctions on then-Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another senior official, Phakiso Mochochoko.

Even those who wanted to see accountability for the Israeli genocide were in doubt, especially as pro-Israeli western governments, like that of Germany, stepped forward to prevent the warrants from being issued. Unreasonable delays in the proceedings contributed to the skepticism, especially as Khan himself was suddenly being paraded for supposed “sexual misconduct”.

Yet, after all of this, on 21 November the arrest warrants were issued, charging Netanyahu and Gallant with alleged “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” – the other punishable offenses within the ICC jurisdiction being genocide and aggression.

Considering that the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has already found that it is plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide and is currently investigating the case, Israel, as a state, and top Israeli leaders have suddenly, and deservingly so, become the enemies of humanity.

While it is right and legitimate to argue that what matters most is the tangible outcome of these cases – ending the genocide while holding the Israeli war criminals accountable – we must not miss the greater meaning of these earth-shattering events.

The ICJ and the ICC are essentially two western institutions created to police the world by reinforcing the double standards resulting from the post-World War II western-dominated international system.

They are the legal equivalent of the Bretton Woods agreement, which regulated the international monetary system to serve US western interests. Though, in theory, they championed universally commendable values, in practice they merely served as tools of control and dominance for the western order.

For years, the world has been in a state of obvious and irreversible change. New powers were rising and others were shrinking. Political turmoil in the US, Britain and France were only reflections of the internal struggle in the west’s ruling classes. The incredible rise of China, the war in Europe and the growing resistance in the Middle East were outcomes and accelerators of that change.

Thus the constant call for reforms in the post-WWII international system to reflect in a more equitable way the new global realities. Despite American-western resistance to change, new geopolitical formations continued to take place, regardless.

The Gaza genocide represents a watershed moment in these global dynamics. This was reflected in Karim Khan’s language when he requested the arrest warrants, stressing on the credibility of the court. “This is why we have a court,” he said in an exclusive interview with CNN on 20 May. “It’s about the equal application of the law. No people are better than another. No people anywhere are saints.”

The emphasis on credibility here is a culmination of the obvious loss of credibility on all fronts. This should hardly be a surprise as it was in the west, the self-proclaimed champion of human rights, the very political entity that championed, defended and sustained the Israeli genocide.

While one would like to believe that the ICC’s arrest warrants were made exclusively for the sake of the victims of the Israeli genocide, plenty of evidence suggests that the unexpected move was a desperate western attempt at salvaging whatever little credibility it had maintained up to that moment.

The US government, an unrepentant violator of human rights, has maintained its strong position in defence of Israel, shaming the ICC for the warrants, not the Israeli war criminals for committing the genocide.

The conflict in Europe has been much more palpable, however, reflected in the position of Germany, which said it would “carefully examine” the arrest warrants but that it is “hard to imagine that we would make arrests on this basis”.

One remains hopeful that the shifts of global powers will eventually save international law from the hypocrisy and opportunism of the west. But what is clear for now is that the west’s own conflict will only gain momentum. Will those who created the Zionist Israeli menace be the very powers that demolish it? One is doubtful.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Via Middle East Monitor

Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“France is committed to international justice and its independence,” Barrot said in an interview for France 3 TV channel.

“We have been saying from the very beginning that Israel has the right to defend itself within the framework of respect for international law.”

“Each time Israel violates international law, blocking access to aid, bombing civilians, forcibly displacing them, establishing colonies in the West Bank.”

He added they “strongly” condemn these actions.

Asked if he supported the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Barrot said: “I cannot put myself in the position of the court in any circumstance.”

Barrot argued that the ICC’s arrest warrant amounted to “the formalization of the accusation against certain politicians.”

Regarding the question of whether Netanyahu would be arrested if he visited France, Barrot said: “France will always apply international law.”

The ICC, in a landmark move on Thursday, issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel has launched a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip following a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas in October last year, killing more than 44,000 people, most of them women and children.

It has also engaged in cross-border warfare with Lebanon, launching an air campaign in late September against what it claims are Hezbollah targets.

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on Gaza.

Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

——

Bonus Video Added by Informed Comment:

Al Jazeera English: “ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. What’s next? | The Take”

(The Conversation) – The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader, Mohammed Deif. The court claims both sides have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes from the day Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 onwards.

Although a warrant was issued for Deif, Israel has said he was killed in an air strike in July. But Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied this claim. If they were ever to be judged at the ICC, a conviction is conceivable.

The charges of the court against Netanyahu are severe. The three-judge panel unanimously said that he and Gallant are “co-perpetrators for committing the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

The judges also “found reasonable grounds to believe that they bear criminal responsibility” … “for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”. The charges are also backed by the work of the International Court of Justice, which has found that it is “plausible” that Israel has committed acts in Gaza that violate the Genocide Convention.

If arrested, Netanyahu would go through a trial, and he could then be acquitted, or convicted. In the latter case, Netanyahu would join the ranks of leaders considered perpetrators of crimes against humanity, such as Charles Taylor of Liberia, Hissène Habré of Chad, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Radovan Karadžić of Serbia, Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Joseph Stalin of the former Soviet Union, Mao Zedong of China, and Adolf Hitler of Germany.

“War Criminal,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Next steps

The arrest warrants rely on ICC member states carrying them out. And this is by no means a foregone conclusion. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been wanted by the court since 2023 for his role in directing attacks at civilians in Ukraine and illegal deportation of Ukrainian children.

But Putin was not arrested on a recent visit to Mongolia, a state that is party to the ICC, after the Mongolian authorities had assured him he would be safe. That said, he was unable to travel to South Africa when leaders from the Brics economic bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met in Johannesburg in 2023.

This was due to the experience in South Africa of former Sudanese president, Omar Al-Bashir. Bashir, for whom the ICC granted arrest warrants in 2009 and 2010 for allegedly directing a campaign of mass killing, rape and pillage against civilians in Darfur, travelled to South Africa in 2015 to attend an African Union summit. But he had to leave abruptly for fear of arrest.

South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 that the government’s failure to arrest him was unlawful. And the ICC ruled against South Africa on its “shameful failure” to arrest Bashir the following year. He was also able to travel freely to other ICC member states, including Chad, Kenya and Jordan.

Bashir was overthrown in a military coup in 2019 and placed under arrest. He is now persona non grata in Sudan where he was convicted of corruption, sentenced to two years in prison, and is being investigated for his role in the coup that brought him to power.

Not arresting criminals inflicts damage on the ICC, which already has a weak record of prosecutions. For example, after former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagb, was charged then acquitted. But it also takes away a major opportunity to achieve justice for victims of serious crimes.

Dramatic political implications

The likelihood of Netanyahu, who has become the first ever leader of a western country to be charged by the ICC, appearing at the Hague is low. But the political implications of the arrest warrants for Netanyahu are, at any rate, dramatic.

Netanyahu knew the ICC would be able to hold him to account for his political decisions, and this is exactly why he disapproved of Palestine joining the ICC in 2015.

In practice, Netanyahu might lose even more legitimacy in his own country than he has done already with some groups. Civil society groups in Israel are following the work of the ICC very closely.

B’Tselem, a Jerusalem-based non-profit organisation that documents human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories, has said that the ICC intervention and ICJ rulings “are a chance for us, Israelis, to realise that … upholding a regime of supremacy, violence and oppression necessarily involves crimes and severe violation of human rights”.

Netanyahu will also be limited in his travels, and viewed as a pariah in many of the 124 states that are party to the ICC. This is a view that would be shared by most leaders of European states, including Germany. In May, a spokesperson for the German government hinted that Germany would arrest Netanyahu should warrants be issued.

The EU is, for the moment, unlikely to be able to use its global human rights’ sanctions regime against Netanyahu, which allows targeted measures against foreign nationals who are deemed responsible for gross violations of human rights. This is because unanimity across the bloc is necessary, and some states such as Austria, Czechia, Hungary and Germany could be reluctant to agree to this. Even the French foreign ministry spokesperson said: “It’s a point that is legally complex.” But the EU is a strong supporter of the ICC, so there will be pressure in governments of all EU states to act against Netanyahu.

The political implications of this decision are not isolated to Netanyahu. Pro-Palestinian protest activity has taken place at over 500 US colleges since October 7. And the UK has now joined most EU states in supporting Netanyahu’s arrest.

The US is now very much isolated among western countries in its lack of support for international law. The ICC, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly visible in its quest for international justice for victims.

Catherine Gegout, Associate Professor in International Relations, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“Is it possible that after 42,000 people killed, you cannot empathise with the Palestinians?” Albanese said in her statement about the need to “recognise (Israel’s war on Gaza) as a genocide”. “Those of you who have not uttered a word about what is happening in Gaza demonstrate that empathy has evaporated from this room,” she added.

Was Albanese too idealistic when she chose to appeal to empathy which, in her words, represents “the glue that makes us stand united as humanity”?

The answer largely depends on how we wish to define the role being played by the UN and its various institutions; whether its global platform was established as a guarantor of peace, or as a political club for those with military might and political power to impose their agendas on the rest of the world?

Albanese is not the first person to express deep frustration with the institutional, let alone the moral collapse of the UN, or the inability of the institution to effect any kind of tangible change, especially during times of great crises.

The UN’s own Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, himself had accused the executive branch of the UN, the Security Council, of being “outdated”, “unfair” and an “ineffective system”.

“The truth is that the Security Council has systematically failed in relation to the capacity to put an end to the most dramatic conflicts that we face today,” he said, referring to “Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine”. Also, although noting that “The UN is not the Security Council”, Guterres acknowledged that all UN bodies “suffer from the fact that the people look at them and think, ‘Well, but the Security Council has failed us.’”

Some UN officials, however, are mainly concerned about how the UN’s failure is compromising the standing of the international system, thus whatever remains of their own credibility. But some, like Albanese, are indeed driven by an overriding sense of humanity.

On 28 October, 2023, mere weeks after the start of the war, the Director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights left his post because he could no longer find any room to reconcile between the failure to stop the war in Gaza and the credibility of the institution.

“This will be my last communication to you,” Craig Mokhiber wrote to the UN High Commissioner in Geneva, Volker Turk. “Once again we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes and the organisation we serve appears powerless to stop it,” Mokhiber added.

The phrase “once again” may explain why the UN official made his decision to leave shortly after the start of the war. He felt that history was repeating itself, in all its gory details, while the international community remained divided between powerlessness and apathy.

The problem is multi-layered, complicated by the fact that UN officials and employees do not have the power to alter the very skewed structure of the world’s largest political institution. That power lies in the hands of those who wield political, military, financial and veto power.

“UN in Gaza,” Digital, Midjourney / Clip2Comic, 2024.

Within that context, countries like Israel can do whatever they want, including outlawing the very UN organisations that have been commissioned to uphold international law, as the Israeli Knesset did on 28 October when it passed a law banning UNRWA from conducting “any activity” or providing services in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

But is there a way out?

Many, especially in the Global South, believe that the UN has outlived its usefulness or needs serious reforms.

These assessments are valid, based on this simple maxim: The UN was established in 1945 with the main objectives of the “maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of the well-being of the peoples of the world, and international cooperation to these ends.”

Very little of the above commitment has been achieved. In fact, not only has the UN failed at that primary mission, but it has become a manifestation of the unequalled distribution of power among its members.

Though the UN was formed following the atrocities of WWII, now it stands largely useless in its inability to stop similar atrocities in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan and elsewhere.

In her speech, Albanese pointed out that, if the UN’s failures continue, its mandate will become even “more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world”, especially during these times of turmoil.

Albanese is right, of course, but considering the irreversible damage that has already taken place, one can hardly find a moral, let alone rational justification of why the UN, at least in its current form, should continue to exist.

Now that the Global South is finally rising with its own political, economic and legal initiatives, it is time for these new bodies to either offer a complete alternative to the UN or push for serious and irreversible reforms in the organisation.

Either that or the international system will continue to be defined by nothing but apathy and self-interest.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.