The International Criminal Court’s Decision
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, November 24
The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is a monumental one. Yet, unfortunately, it seems to lack the mechanisms necessary for enforcement. This decision remains “pending,” much like other significant UN resolutions concerning the Palestinian cause that have languished in implementation limbo for decades. One can’t help but fear that this decision will prove to be unenforceable. There’s no international military force poised to carry it out, and it’s only obligatory for nations that have ratified the Rome Statute. Seeking enforcement through the UN Security Council is improbable due to the American veto power, as explained by legal expert Dr. Mahmoud Kabish, dean of Cairo University’s Faculty of Law. Nonetheless, Dr. Kabish emphasizes the decision’s undeniable significance from both political and historical viewpoints. For the first time, leaders of the Zionist state have been formally accused by the International Criminal Court—an institution crafted by the international community—of committing international crimes punishable by stringent penalties. This accusation marks the entity with the stigma of international criminality, isolating it on the global stage. It is significant that neither of the accused will risk setting foot in any of the countries that have committed to enforcing the warrant. These include major European nations and Canada, which have historically supported the Zionist state. The decision is akin to a bullet that may not hit directly but nevertheless rattles the leadership of the Zionist state. The upheaval within Netanyahu’s circle is evident, reflected in the fervent Israeli appeals that have reached the White House—a cascade of denials, condemnations, and accusations fired at the court, dismissing it as a “biased and discriminatory political body.” In a frantic attempt to evade this “stain of shame,” Netanyahu’s office issued a statement attacking the court’s integrity: “The decision was made by a corrupt prosecutor attempting to evade serious sexual harassment allegations, and by biased judges motivated by an antisemitic hatred of Israel.” The familiar charge of antisemitism is employed once again, deployed like an incendiary device against anyone who opposes Israel’s actions. It’s a charge hurled at those who decry the relentless cycle of genocide, destruction, and the slaughter of innocents—even newborn children. Antisemitism has become a malleable accusation, one that could feasibly condemn the entire world, not just the court’s judges, as perpetually hostile toward Jews. This charge has become a shield for those who commit atrocities, as if merely questioning their actions aligns one with centuries-old enmity. To clarify, antisemitism, in the literal sense, refers to hostility against Semitic peoples—a term first coined by German researcher Wilhelm Marr to describe the swell of animosity toward Jews in Central Europe during the 19th century. While Arabs and Assyrians also belong to the Semitic family, their suffering at the hands of aggressors is not categorized as antisemitism. Hostility against Jews alone is a form of racism, whereas their genocidal actions, causing humanity’s collective shame, are not labeled the same. —Hamdy Rizk (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
