The ICC war crimes arrest warrant against Netanyahu is not antisemitism
Dec 31, 2024
The arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant sparked outrage in Israel and across the Jewish world. But the ICC’s decision is neither antisemitic nor a modern-day blood libel: it is a call for Jews not to sacrifice the universal ideal of justice on the altar of uncritically defending Israel.
Two weeks ago, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The warrants sparked outrage across the Jewish world.
Israeli politicians and several Jewish organisations condemned the move, calling it absurd, a dark day evoking the past and a mockery of justice. Outraged comments flooded social media, denouncing the move as antisemitic and a modern-day blood libel.
The decision to issue the warrants has been interpreted by many as a denial of Israel’s right to self-defence in the face of the brutal terrorist attack of 7 October and the ensuing war on various fronts. If this were the case, it could certainly be seen as antisemitic, since Israel has as much of a right and duty to defend its citizens as any other country.
For many Jews around the world, Israel is part of their identity. They feel the warrants are an attack on them and, more broadly, on the Jewish people as a whole. The days when Jews were falsely accused, dehumanised and, ultimately, exterminated are still painfully close. Any act that evokes this memory is deeply disturbing and, understandably, many people react solely to the accusations, regardless of the situation.
However, the ICC’s decision is not an attack on Israel or the Jewish people. Based on the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, the indictment states that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals [Netanyahu and Gallant] intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”
Anyone who has followed the events of the war and seen the horrific pictures of malnourished children or amputations carried out without anesthesia, cannot doubt the legitimacy of the accusations.
In the first month of the war, Israel closed its border with Gaza and did not allow any goods in. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said: “We are putting a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel.”
Then Energy Minister (and current Foreign Minister) Israel Katz wrote: “No electrical switch will be lifted, no water hydrant will be opened, and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli hostages are returned home – nobody should preach us morality.”
National Security Minister,Itamar Ben Gvir, said: “As long as Hamas does not release the hostages, the only thing that should enter Gaza is hundreds of tons of explosives from the Air Force, not an ounce of humanitarian aid.”
International humanitarian law prohibits the starvation of civilians (Geneva Conventions, AP 1, 54 and AP 2, 14) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8 (b) (25)) states that “Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime.
Later, under pressure from the United States and the international community, Israel eased the blockade, but the amount of food and medical supplies that were allowed in was only a fraction of the aid that had entered the enclave before the war, particularly in northern Gaza.
Needless to say, the Israeli government must do everything it can to ensure the return of the hostages, but anyone reading the UN reports and listening to eyewitness accounts can see that, as the war progressed, Israel became both victim and perpetrator.
According to the IPC Famine Review Committee, this led to the starvation of a quarter of Gaza’s population by early 2024, and UNICEF found that 25 percent of children under five in northern Gaza were severely malnourished. The ICC therefore “found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.”
The two reasons given for the charge of crimes against humanity are:
1. “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, created conditions of life […] which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.”
2. “By intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, […] inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment.”
This evidentiary basis shows that the ICC is not denying Israel’s right to self-defence. It has not ordered the arrest warrants for the military strikes against Hamas and Hezbollah or for efforts to free the hostages, but for war crimes against Palestinian civilians, that are well documented by aid workers, doctors working in hospitals and eyewitnesses in Gaza.
Reacting to the allegations, Netanyahu said that Israel was “fighting a just war” against terrorism. The ICC does not dispute that at all: It considers the way the war is being waged to be unjust.
Anyone who has followed the events of the war and seen the horrific pictures of malnourished children or amputations carried out without anaesthesia, cannot doubt the legitimacy of the accusations. It is heartbreaking to see people drinking contaminated water and having no choice but to eat animal feed.
If we blame antisemitism in situations where it may be obvious to everyone that we are facing a well-founded accusation, and the accusation is made by figures as authoritative as Israel’s top leaders, we are seriously devaluing the term antisemitism.
There is antisemitism in the world and, unfortunately, it is on the rise, and it must be fought in every forum and at every opportunity, but if we use the term to deflect attention from an unpleasant fact, sooner or later it will sound hollow when its use is critical for genuine cases.
Drawing attention to Israel’s oppressive policy toward the Palestinians and, in this case, to the suffering caused by the war, is not antisemitism. In fact, there is a fair case to make that if Israel were not held accountable for crimes against civilians, that could trigger an antisemitic backlash, on the basis of the illogicality of not applying humanitarian and international laws to the Jewish state.
It is equally disturbing to call the warrants a modern-day blood libel. This is a very serious and completely misleading allegation.
The assertion that Israel first imposed a total and then a partial siege on Gaza, resulting in starvation, suffering and death, is a factual statement. Even those who argue in favour of the legitimacy of the blockade on Gaza cannot dispute this. Do we really think that medieval blood libels had any factual basis? Presenting this analogy suggests the blood libels of the Middle Ages were not blatant lies, but had the kind of factual substantiation of suffering in Gaza that we can see with our own eyes today.
I understand that, due to the Hamas attack on October 7, many people believe that Israel is the sole victim in this conflict. Needless to say, the Israeli government must do everything it can to ensure the return of the hostages, but anyone reading the UN reports and listening to eyewitness accounts can see that, as the war progressed, Israel became both victim and perpetrator.
The fact that arrest warrants have been issued for Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister is indeed terrible, but not because there are antisemitic judges in The Hague, but because of the decisions these two powerful men have taken. There is no doubt that in wartime there is enormous pressure on leaders to protect their own citizens and rescue those who have been abducted, but that does not give them carte blanche to commit war crimes.
Many Jews believe that they have a duty to defend Israel, regardless of its conduct. I believe that, besides our natural support and commitment to the Jewish state, we must draw a line. We cannot sacrifice the universal and Jewish ideal of justice and humanity on the altar of defending Israel, right or wrong, even when it acts in an unjust manner.
Moreover, we are not helping Israel either: we are failing to hold up a mirror to it and continue to allow it to fall into an ever deeper moral abyss. Israel has as much right to exist in the world as any other nation, and when it is attacked, it must be supported in the same way as any other country, but we must also speak out against violations and abuses, including those committed by Jews or the Jewish state. It is the only way to preserve our own moral integrity and, in my view, the only right way to show solidarity with Israel.
Republished from HAARETZ Israel News, Dec 2, 2024