Indignant protests by Israeli and US leaders over last week’s decision by the prosecutor of the international criminal court (ICC) to seek Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest for alleged war crimes shone new light on an old reality: for those at the top who wield decisive political power, all people are equal – but some are more equal than others.
At the heart of objections to Karim Khan’s gutsy move is the unspoken implication that violence against Palestinians, a dispossessed, marginalised and largely voiceless people, is less wrong, or somehow more acceptable, than violence against Israelis, the privileged, protected citizens of an established nation state. To demur is to be accused, inanely yet inevitably, of antisemitism.
The self-reverencing fury of US and Israeli politicians, and some in Europe, is revealing – and dismaying. Hamas’s massacre of about 1,200 people last October was appalling, criminal and unforgivable – and must and will be punished. It does not justify Israel’s disproportionate, illegal and indiscriminately lethal response in Gaza. But they just don’t get it.
Palestinian lives matter as much as anyone else’s. How is it that western politicians so easily tolerate, ignore or defend the killing of about 35,000 people, at least 12,000 of whom were women and children (based on revised UN figures), through the bombing of homes and hospitals and the blocking and hijacking of aid?
Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and the US president, Joe Biden, insist that arraigning Israeli and Hamas leaders at the same time implies “moral equivalence”. This is nonsense. There are “reasonable grounds to believe,” as Khan and his expert advisers state, that both sides have committed grave criminal offences. All those responsible must answer equally, whoever and whatever they may be.
Netanyahu and his co-defendant, the defence minister, Yoav Gallant, may think they are above the law, especially international law, which they contemptuously flout. Perhaps they believe, while enforcing the occupation of Palestinian areas, that Israel is, too. That is certainly the impression given by their army’s reckless conduct in Gaza.
If so, they are not alone. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, is accused of overseeing numerous crimes in Ukraine. The ICC issued an arrest warrant last year. Does this suggest “moral equivalence” with Hamas terrorists – or Netanyahu? No. It simply means that Putin, like any other individual, must answer for his alleged actions. Like them, his assumption of impunity is – and must be shown to be – false.
It’s surprising how difficult western leaders find this concept of equality before the law, even as they prate about upholding the democratic, international rules-based order. Biden’s reaction was illogical, bordering on bizarre. “What’s happening is not genocide,” he said. But the ICC is not saying it is. That’s a different court, Joe.
Biden condemned efforts to arrest the two Israelis (but not the Hamas leaders) as “outrageous”. He has himself sharply criticised Israel’s starvation tactics in Gaza, a central ICC charge, and its failure to protect civilians. Yet now he balks at attempts to ensure those responsible are held accountable – while backing the ICC warrant for Putin. This is pick’n’mix justice.
As a trained lawyer, Antony Blinken, America’s top diplomat, should know better. Most of the world recognises Palestinian statehood. Spain, Ireland and Norway just signed up. No matter what Blinken says, the ICC has legal jurisdiction in Gaza. Nor should Palestinians have to wait for Israel’s compromised courts to investigate. On past experience, they would wait a very long time indeed.
Netanyahu and his aggressive spokesmen continue to laud the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as “the world’s most moral army”. They claim, without offering evidence, that it does more than any other in history to avoid harming civilians. But the world is not blind – despite blanket Israeli restrictions on independent investigations and reporting.
Gaza is a manmade horror, unprecedented in the modern era. Direct comparisons are problematic and inexact. But measured by deaths and displacement, Gaza appears worse than Mosul (2017), Aleppo (2016) and even Grozny (1994-955). Palestinians are also dying in record numbers in the Occupied West Bank.
after newsletter promotion
Only the codependent arrogance and ignorance of those leading Israel-friendly countries explains the tolerance afforded long-established patterns of atrocious behaviour. In Britain, Rishi Sunak called the ICC move “deeply unhelpful”. What is he thinking? Is it “unhelpful” to try to curb lawless killing? Is it “unhelpful” to seek justice? This is not moral equivalence. It’s total moral confusion.
Some in Israel do get it. The left-leaning Haaretz newspaper said a larger strategic failure had led to ICC action. “Israel embarked on a justified war… that at first had broad international support. But mismanagement of this war, the callousness and craven stupidity of this government, has transformed Israel into a global pariah.”
Problems of presumed political untouchability are not confined to Israel. Yet, in Paris last week, three high-ranking officials in Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian tyranny faced trial in absentia for crimes against humanity. Invoking “universal jurisdiction”, France has also issued an arrest warrant for Assad. It’s a principled gesture that follows similar action by other European countries.
Like Putin, Assad and another ICC indictee, Sudan’s deposed dictator Omar al-Bashir, Netanyahu may calculate he will never stand in the dock in The Hague. Yet can he be sure? For, despite the Orwellian double standards of some in the west, it was, overall, a good week for international justice.
In another advance, the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah, in southern Gaza. The gathering message is plain. Impunity cannot stand. For war criminals, there may be no lasting sanctuary. No one, however powerful, is above the law. Everyone has a right to protection.
Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s Foreign Affairs Commentator
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk