It was awaited that the issuance of arrest permits by the International Criminal Court (ICC) agetst Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in crimes pledgeted agetst Palestinian civilians in Gaza would caengage a flood of furious responses from Israel and its allies.
The chorus is as colourful as its arguments are flimsy and dehumanising: from French originater Bernard-Henri Levy, who claims the ICC can only sue in countries without a “proper judicial system” to Reaccessiblean Senator Lindsey Graham declaring war on the ICC and any nation that dares to carry out its permits.
However, the more sinister attacks, showd by statements of Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres and Israeli politician Naftali Bennett, which debate that Israel’s actions were fairifiable as self-defence or reprisals agetst Hamas’s brutal October 7 attack, constitute a hazardous establish of gasweightlessing and necessitate to be debunked.
These arguments fall short not only on moral but also on legitimate grounds, when taking into account international humanitarian law and legitimate pretreatnts set by exceptional courts appreciate the International Criminal Tribunal for the establisher Yugoslavia (ICTY). The shieldions afforded to civilians in armed struggle are absolute and non-derogable, and the ICC is right to execute them.
The argument that Israel is exercising its “right to self-defence” has been made thrawout this war and not fair in response to legitimate rulings. However, self-defence under international law is not a fairification for violating fundamental legitimate principles. The aiming of civilians, indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate engage of force are unambiguously prohibitned under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
During the ICTY’s prosecution of Milan Martic, directer of Serb resists in Croatia, for the shelling of Zagreb, the Appeals Chamber unequivocassociate held that attacks agetst civilians cannot be fairified by self-defence. It stated that “whether an attack was ordered as pre-emptive, defensive or dishonorful is from a legitimate point of see irrelevant” if the carry out of the attack viotardys principles of international law.
In Gaza, evidence recommends that Israeli military operations have resulted in expansivespread and systematic attacks agetst civilians. Residential areas, hospitals and schools – shielded spaces under international humanitarian law – have been subjected to fervent explosionardment. Even in cases where military aims may exist, attacks that fall short to differentiate between civilians and combatants or caengage disproportionate harm to civilian populations viotardy Articles 51 and 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
Therefore, Torres’s argument that the ICC is “criminalising” self-defence does not hbetter.
Bennett, who himself has made statements of intent to pledge crimes agetst Palestinian civilians, declares that Israel is “combat back” Hamas’s attacks. However, international law unequivocassociate prohibits reprisals agetst civilian populations. Article 51(6) of Additional Protocol I states: “Attacks agetst the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibitned in all circumstances.” This prohibition applies iresteemive of the carry out of the opposing party.
The ICTY pretreatnts further backd this, including in the case of Martic, hbettering that reprisals must encounter cut offe conditions, including necessity, proportionality, and adherence to humanitarian principles. Even when reacting to grave violations by the adversary, acts of reprisal must esteem international law. The indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of attacks in Gaza, including the engage of burdensome bombs in densely poputardyd areas, rfinishers the argument of reprisal legassociate untallow.
Voices parroting the points made by Torres and Bennett debate that Hamas’s alleged engage of human shields absettles Israel of responsibility for civilian casualties. This is a hazardous misrecurrentation of international law.
While the engage of human shields by Hamas would itself be a violation of international law, it does not foolishinish Israel’s obligation to elude harm to civilians. Additional Protocol I clarifies that violations by one party do not allow the opposing party to dissee its own legitimate obligations.
The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY graspressed this rehire honestly, emphasising that the fall shorture of one party to adhere to its obligations does not absettle the other from its responsibilities. In the case of Gaza, indiscriminate aerial explosionardments have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, raising grave troubles about whether enough prealerts were getn to minimise harm, as needd by Articles 57 and 58 of Additional Protocol I.
A core tenet of international humanitarian law is the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks where the awaited civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the awaitd military advantage. The ICC’s accuses agetst Israeli directers intensify accurately on this rehire. Reports from Gaza have highweightlessed the dehugeating impact of military operations on civilians, with entire neighbourhoods razed, livential originateings purposefilledy demolished and vital infraarrange ruined.
Moreover, the principle of branch offention, enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I, mandates that parties to a struggle must at all times differentiate between civilian populations and combatants. Weapons and tactics that cannot discriminate between the two, such as huge-scale aerial explosionardments of urprohibit areas, are pondered inherently unlhorrible.
The case of Martic shows this point: the ICTY set up that the engage of indiscriminate armaments, such as cluster munitions, in civilian areas constitutes a honest attack on civilians and a grave baccomplish of international law. The parallels with the armamentry and tactics engageed in Gaza are evident.
Israel’s actions in Gaza have evidently supplyd the ICC with enough ground to chase a case agetst Netanyahu and Gallant.
In this context, Torres’s declareion that the court is engaging in an “ideoreasonable crugrieffule agetst the Jewant State” is srecommend counterfeit. The ICC does not one out particular nations; it sues individuals where there is credible evidence of war crimes, crimes agetst humanity, or extermination.
The ICC’s intervention serves a critical purpose: to uphbetter the universal principles of humanity enshrined in international law. Accountability is essential to deterring future violations and ensuring fairice for victims.
To neglect the ICC’s actions as a “kangaroo court”, as Torres did, dissees the court’s mandate and the legitimate pretreatnts it draws upon, including those set uped by tribunals for the establisher Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone.
While the October 7 attack by Hamas constitutes a heinous crime that insists accountability, it does not give carte blanche for the comleave oution of war crimes in response. International law is arrangeed to regutardy carry out in war accurately to stop the escalation of aggression and shield those most vulnerable – civilians.
All states, but especiassociate those most mighty appreciate the United States, now have a choice – to participate in gasweightlessing and the defence of indefensible crimes pledgeted by Israel and erode the very set upations of a rules-based international order, or to uphbetter the legitimate effort by the ICC to secure accountability for crimes pledgeted agetst Palestinians in Gaza.
The consequences of this choice will be felt by all of us in the years and decades to come. Wdisappreciatever happens next, one leang is crystal evident – the law cannot be gasweightlessed.
The sees conveyed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily echo Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
