The ICC Issues Arrest Warrants: What You Need to Know

Nov 22, 2024

Ask episode

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel’s defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations?

Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust.

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

Go Deeper – AJC Analysis:

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli:

Manya Brachear Pashman:

The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks.

Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC’s Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod.

Belle Yoeli:

Thanks so much, Manya.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:

Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7.

I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read.

And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this?

Belle Yoeli:

Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it’s not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense.

If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies.

And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.

And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ?

Belle Yoeli:

So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It’s quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.

And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC’s jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories.

And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted.

That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So is Israel a member of the ICC?

Belle Yoeli:

So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right?

But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant.

Belle Yoeli:

So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees.

The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents.

So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of?

Belle Yoeli:

So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue.

So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration?

Belle Yoeli:

So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And what about the international community?

Belle Yoeli:

You know, it’s interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do.

You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war?

Belle Yoeli:

I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see.

I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing.

And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam.

So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home?

Belle Yoeli:

Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn’t say.

Manya Brachear Pashman:

Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners.

Belle Yoeli:

Thank you so much for having me.