The Israeli government’s actions during its ongoing conflict with Hamas have reignited debates over war crimes, international law, and the pursuit of accountability. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Secretary Yoav Gallant marks a historic and controversial step, as does the parallel warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri (Mohammed Deif). The allegations against the Israeli government include the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
Israel’s rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction, combined with its denial of war crimes in Gaza, underscores the fraught relationship between powerful states and international legal mechanisms. Examining these allegations and their implications requires an in-depth exploration of the principles of international humanitarian law, the evidence of violations, and the broader consequences for global justice.
Violations of International Humanitarian Law in Gaza
The foundational tenets of international humanitarian law (IHL) are designed to protect civilians during armed conflict. These include the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit deliberate attacks on civilian populations, the use of starvation as a weapon, and collective punishment. Israel’s military actions in Gaza, particularly following the 7 October attacks by Hamas, have been criticised for violating these principles.
Starvation as a Method of Warfare
One of the most severe allegations against the Israeli government is its use of starvation as a weapon. The ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant cite this specific crime, rooted in Article 8 of the Rome Statute, which defines starvation as a war crime. Israel’s complete siege of Gaza—cutting off food, water, fuel, and electricity—has plunged the population into a humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations and humanitarian organisations have described the situation in Gaza as a dire crisis, with over two million people facing acute shortages of basic necessities.
Such measures have been characterised by some legal experts as collective punishment, which is explicitly prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Starvation as a method of warfare not only targets civilians but also exacerbates their vulnerability, creating a context in which survival becomes a daily struggle. Israel’s justification for these actions—that they are necessary to weaken Hamas—does not absolve it from responsibility for the suffering inflicted on Gaza’s civilian population.
Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilian Areas
The ongoing bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces has led to the deaths of thousands of civilians, including women and children. Hospitals, schools, and refugee camps have been struck, often with devastating casualties. The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of IHL, mandates that military actions must not cause excessive harm to civilians relative to the anticipated military advantage. Reports from organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have highlighted instances where Israel’s military actions appear to disregard this principle.
The destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure has also compounded the humanitarian crisis, leaving the population without access to adequate medical care, clean water, or shelter. These conditions reflect a deliberate strategy that prioritises military objectives over the well-being of civilians, raising serious questions about compliance with international law.
Persecution and Inhumane Acts
The ICC’s accusations of persecution and other inhumane acts further underline the gravity of the situation in Gaza. The Israeli government’s policies, including forced displacement and the ongoing blockade, have been criticised as forms of systematic oppression. The long-term effects of these measures—economic deprivation, psychological trauma, and social fragmentation—constitute serious violations of human rights.
Challenges to Accountability
Despite the severity of the allegations, holding Israeli leaders accountable presents significant challenges. Neither Israel nor the United States recognises the jurisdiction of the ICC, a stance that complicates the enforcement of arrest warrants. Israel has consistently argued that the ICC is biased against it and has rejected investigations into its actions. This position reflects a broader scepticism toward international legal mechanisms by powerful states, which often perceive such institutions as threats to their sovereignty.
The ICC’s ability to pursue cases against Israeli officials is further hindered by geopolitical dynamics. Western countries, particularly the United States, have historically shielded Israel from international scrutiny, often vetoing resolutions critical of Israeli policies at the United Nations. This political support creates an environment in which accountability is elusive, allowing alleged violations to persist.
Broader Implications for International Law
The ICC’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant is a significant moment in the pursuit of global justice. It signals a willingness to hold powerful leaders accountable, regardless of their country’s status or influence. However, the reaction to these warrants highlights the challenges faced by international institutions in addressing conflicts involving entrenched power dynamics.
The Israeli government’s dismissal of the ICC’s actions as “anti-Semitic” reflects a broader strategy of delegitimising criticism by framing it as an attack on Israel’s identity. While anti-Semitism is a genuine and serious issue, conflating it with valid critiques of Israeli policies undermines the pursuit of justice and accountability. It also diverts attention from the urgent need to address the suffering of civilians in Gaza.
The Role of Western Governments
The response of Western governments to the ICC’s actions will significantly influence the trajectory of this case. The new UK Labour government’s decision not to oppose the ICC’s right to issue arrest warrants marks a departure from the traditional stance of unequivocal support for Israel. This shift may reflect growing recognition of the need for accountability in the context of Israel’s military actions.
However, other Western countries, particularly the United States, continue to provide unwavering support for Israel, often at the expense of addressing legitimate concerns about human rights violations. This double standard undermines the credibility of international legal mechanisms and reinforces perceptions of bias in global governance.
The Parallel Case Against Hamas
The ICC’s arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, the Hamas leader responsible for orchestrating the 7 October attacks, underscores the court’s commitment to addressing crimes on both sides of the conflict. Deif is accused of crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, and torture, as well as war crimes such as taking hostages.
While the ICC’s pursuit of Deif highlights the severity of Hamas’s actions, it also underscores the complexity of achieving justice in asymmetric conflicts. The ICC’s mandate to prosecute individuals rather than states presents a challenge in contexts where non-state actors play a significant role. Nevertheless, addressing the actions of both Israeli leaders and Hamas officials is essential for a balanced and comprehensive approach to accountability.
The allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Israeli government, as outlined by the ICC, reflect a crisis of accountability in the context of the Gaza conflict. The use of starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, and systematic persecution highlight serious violations of international law. However, the challenges of enforcing accountability, particularly given Israel’s rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction and the political dynamics surrounding the conflict, underscore the limitations of current legal mechanisms.
Addressing these issues requires a renewed commitment to the principles of international humanitarian law and the pursuit of justice for all victims of the conflict. While the ICC’s actions represent a significant step toward accountability, achieving meaningful change will require the cooperation of the international community and a willingness to confront entrenched power dynamics. Only through such efforts can the cycle of violence and impunity be broken, paving the way for a more just and peaceful future.
