It was expected that the issuance of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in crimes committed against Palestinian civilians in Gaza would cause a flood of furious responses from Israel and its allies.
The chorus is as colourful as its arguments are flimsy and dehumanising: from French writer Bernard-Henri Levy, who claims the ICC can only prosecute in countries without a “proper judicial system” to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham declaring war on the ICC and any nation that dares to implement its warrants.
However, the more sinister attacks, illustrated by statements of Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres and Israeli politician Naftali Bennett, which argue that Israel’s actions were justifiable as self-defence or reprisals against Hamas’s brutal October 7 attack, constitute a dangerous form of gaslighting and need to be debunked.
These arguments fail not only on moral but also on legal grounds, when taking into account international humanitarian law and legal precedents set by special courts like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The protections afforded to civilians in armed conflict are absolute and non-derogable, and the ICC is right to enforce them.
The argument that Israel is exercising its “right to self-defence” has been made throughout this war and not just in response to legal rulings. However, self-defence under international law is not a justification for violating fundamental legal principles. The targeting of civilians, indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate use of force are explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
During the ICTY’s prosecution of Milan Martic, leader of Serb rebels in Croatia, for the shelling of Zagreb, the Appeals Chamber unequivocally held that attacks against........