close
close
patheur

ICC decision rewards extremism and encourages those who threaten Israel

Sakege
ICC decision rewards extremism and encourages those who threaten Israel

For years we were told that International Criminal Court The Hague recognized that Israel’s judicial system is impartial and a faithful representation of international law. The decisions by Israel’s Supreme Court and prosecutors have often sparked outrage among IDF officers and politicians, as they were seen as unjustified and only necessary to protect soldiers from the reach of the ICC.

One example is the July investigation into alleged abuses at the Sde Teiman detention centre. Military police arrested nine soldiers on suspicion of abusing a Hamas operative from the Nukhba Force. Lawyer Ephraim Damari, representing the soldiers, criticized the chief military prosecutor, Major General. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, accusing her of attacking soldiers and demanding that the case be closed.

“This agent is one of the most brutal terrorists Israel has ever known, a Hamas platoon commander involved in heinous acts of murder on multiple kibbutzim,” Damari said.

“Inexplicably, more weight is being given to their testimony than to that of our soldiers.” He added that prosecutors, in a disturbing move, referred to the terrorist as a “Hamas police officer” in legal documents, a euphemism that Damari derided as an affront to justice.

Adding to public outrage, a July court ruling ordered state-funded legal representation for more than 100 Nukhba terrorists. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir condemned the decision, and Levin announced that his ministry would not fund lawyers for terrorists. Apparently, even these measures by Israel’s prosecutors were not enough for the ICC.

Then-acting Chief Justice Uzi Vogelman presides over a Superior Court hearing on a petition to close the Sde Teiman detention center in June. For years, we were told that the ICC recognized Israel’s judicial system as impartial and a faithful representation of international law, the writer says. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

Growing criticism of ICC actions

Political commentators have argued that a state commission investigating the October 7 attacks could have prevented ICC arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. However, critics question how such a commission would have influenced accusations against Israel stemming from post-war actions.October 7. Israel’s attorney general condemned the ICC prosecutor’s decision and stated that Israel is evaluating its legal options.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan accused Israel of war crimes, including “starving a population.” However, since the conflict began, Israel has facilitated the entry into Gaza of 58,000 trucks carrying more than 1.3 million tons of food, medicine and other supplies, far exceeding humanitarian needs. Hamas has seized and monetized much of this aid, further financing terrorism.

In a politically charged move, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, alleging war crimes. Nations including Spain, the Netherlands, Italy and Canada declared they would enforce the orders, while Hungary and Argentina refused. The United Kingdom and Germany remain undecided.

The United States’ rejection of the ICC

The Biden administration issued an unprecedented statement opposing the ICC decision. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) warned nations not to comply with arrest warrants, calling the ICC a “kangaroo court” and its prosecutor, Karim Khan, “a fanatic.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced legislation proposing sanctions against countries that support the ICC, threatening economic retaliation. “These orders threaten not only Israel but also the sovereignty of the United States,” Graham said, predicting bipartisan support for the legislation.

Stay up to date with the latest news!

Subscribe to the Jerusalem Post newsletter

USA There is precedent for such measures. In 2020, then-President Trump imposed sanctions on ICC staff after attempting to investigate US troops in Afghanistan, a move that effectively ended the investigation.

The bigger picture

The ICC’s actions endanger Israeli leaders, senior defense officials, and IDF personnel. The court operates as a tool for Israel’s adversaries, undermining its right to self-defense and emboldening Iran and its proxies.

Karim Khan, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct and tampering with the investigation, falsely assured Israel that he would not issue arrest warrants without first allowing a response to the allegations.

TO Telegraph An article from earlier this week highlighted the broader implications of the ICC decision, stating: “The war crimes accusation against Israel’s leaders raises deep questions about the ability of democracies to defend themselves.” Since the brutal Hamas attack on October 7, Israel has adopted self-defense measures aligned with international law, targeting terrorist infrastructure.

Would Britain and its allies have prevailed in World War II if Winston Churchill had faced the specter of war crimes charges?

The ICC decision rewards extremism, undermines Middle East stability, and emboldens those who threaten Israel’s existence. It is a stark reminder of the challenges democracies face in countering evolving global threats.

The author is honorary consul general of Nauru, vice-dean of the Diplomatic Consular Corps, president of the Israel Broadcasting Association and vice-president of the Ambassadors Club.



Related Posts