Israel and the International Criminal Court
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, April 19
The Arab media have taken notice of the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue a formal arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of war crimes, namely the kidnapping and deportation of Ukrainian children. This development is an immense escalation against the Russian president and a continuation of the zero-sum game in the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Relatedly, I was among the first to express support for the court in its mission to address Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. I also alluded to the US-led atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison. While some ICC prosecutors of African origin focused their remarks on Africa alone, others also touched upon Palestine and Iraq. The Palestinian Authority presented a dossier to the court in 2015 regarding the Israeli offenses during the 2014 Gaza war, followed by another brief in 2018 on Israel’s handling of Palestinian protests. After several indications of the court’s intention to launch formal investigations, the Israeli government made it clear from the onset that it was unconcerned with the court since it had not joined its statute. Israel, the United States, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq all rejected the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002. The ICC’s mandate has only been ratified by 66 countries, and it largely focuses on African nations. This has led to accusations that the court is a tool of oppression rather than justice. Washington has continually asked for an exception to the court’s jurisdiction for its soldiers in Bosnia in order to avoid any accountability. This exception was renewed annually by the UN Security Council until the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was exposed in 2004. This reinforced the notion that when laws benefit the powerful, injustice becomes prevalent. A few weeks ago, Western capitals celebrated the decision to summon Putin to the court, hailing it as a diplomatic victory. However, such a triumph may be short-lived, as it opens up the court to double standards and undermines its credibility. Depending on the outcome of the Ukraine conflict, the court may need to be reshaped to better fit the new international balance of power, one in which Washington is not a sole authority enjoying impunity. However, an outright defeat of Russia is unlikely, and so the court’s double standards and selectivity, as well as its connection to Western orders, will remain. There is an opportunity for a Palestinian and Arab movement, as well as all those who support Palestinian rights, to make a swift and orderly move. This action should not be delayed, regardless of the outcome of the Ukrainian war. Israel’s current transgressions disregard all existing legal frameworks, even if some of them are vague and ambiguous, such as the United Nations Charter, international agreements on the treatment of people under occupation, and human rights covenants. This window of opportunity should be taken advantage of to increase the pressure on Israel and its transgressions and to embarrass Washington and the West for their double standards. There is a wide range of legal basis to base these claims, including murder, torture, extortion of citizens, desecration of religious sanctities, racial persecution, and many more. All of these should be taken into consideration when attempting to enforce the law on Israel, just like it is being enforced on Russia. —Mohamed Badr El-Din Zayed (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
