Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
International pressure on the Israeli government’s conduct in its war in Gaza is intensifying. Last week, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, along with Hamas leaders, of war crimes, sparking outrage from Israel and its biggest ally, the United States. The International Court of Justice tidy Israel must stop its attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Ireland, Norway and Spain have, meanwhile, committed to recognize the Palestinian state – a symbolic blow against an Israeli leader who criticizes any talk of a two-state solution.
This should be a wake-up call, a moment for moderate Israelis to realize that, despite global sympathy for the horrific Hamas attack of October 7, the actions of their far-right government are leading the country to greater isolation.
After Karim Khan, the ICC prosecutor, requested arrest warrants of Israeli leaders, as well as three Hamas leaders, Israeli and American officials accused him of equating the actions of a democratically elected government with those of a terrorist organization. President Joe Biden angrily declared that “there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
khan ApplicationsHowever, backed by a panel of six experts including an American-Israeli judge, made no comparisons or claimed equivalence between the two sides. Instead, they concluded that there was evidence that both Israeli and Hamas leaders were responsible, in different ways, for crimes under international humanitarian law. Applying the law to only one side would have seemed like selective justice. The only other option was not to act against either of them.
Claims that the ICC official is denying Israel’s right to self-defense are equally erroneous. Khan’s application recognizes that right, but says it should have been exercised in a manner consistent with the rules of war. He alleges that Israel’s top leaders have used starvation as a method of warfare and collective punishment of Gaza’s besieged civilian population, which they vigorously deny. ICC judges will decide whether they agree that the evidence is sufficient to warrant issuing warrants.
The ICC requests seek to demonstrate that the laws of conflict apply to elected leaders and their armed forces, as well as autocrats and non-state actors or terrorists. They may help bolster the credibility of a court whose initial focus on Africa led to accusations that it only targeted developing countries.
The courts’ actions are a blow to the Jewish state, still traumatized by Hamas atrocities. The initial reaction of many, including the political opposition, has been to seek Netanyahu’s support. However, international pressure over the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza highlights the extent to which Israel’s prime minister and the far-right extremists he depends on to hold his ruling coalition together are making it increasingly difficult even for his allies to support him.
Israel’s partners are frustrated by Netanyahu’s resistance to allowing more aid to reach devastated Gaza and his determination to continue the offensive in Rafah, where more than 1 million people had sought refuge. They are also angry at his refusal to come up with a viable post-conflict plan for the strip; his inability to stop Jewish settlers rampaging through the occupied West Bank; and Israel’s rejection of the Biden administration’s plans to take steps toward a two-state solution. That is the only way to provide Israel with the long-term security it needs.
Israel is not a signatory to the ICC, whose judges can reject Khan’s request, and the ICJ has no means to enforce its order. But the fact that Israel has found itself in this position underscores the extent to which Netanyahu has become a liability to his country. He promises total “victory,” but his offensive in Gaza appears stalled and he has failed to meet key objectives. More than ever, Israel requires responsible and sober leadership that the current prime minister is unwilling or unable to provide.