The decision held in the International Criminal Court (ICC) to pursue arrest warrants against the prime minister and the defense minister of Israel once again proves how even in international judicial institutions, which are supposedly professional and objective, decisions can also be made based on politics.
During its 20 years of operation, until July 2022, only 51 cases were opened in the ICC. In all cases, there were serious allegations of crimes such as murder, rape, sexual slavery, and using child soldiers. Additionally, all cases involved deliberate and widespread attacks on civilians or non-combatants. Of those cases, only 14 reached a verdict, of which four were acquitted, five were convicted of procedural violations, and only five were convicted of the actual crimes.
The plaintiff's arrest warrants against the senior Israeli officials, while ignoring war crimes and crimes against humanity committed daily worldwide, testify to the severe politicization in which the court operates.
The ICC case against Israel
The decision has implications internationally and domestically. In the international arena, it could harm the legitimacy and status of the ICC. Various countries, such as Germany, Austria, Australia, and Hungary, have previously announced that they oppose the court's jurisdiction in the case against Israel.
On the local level, this decision means that anyone with an arrest warrant out for them from the ICC will not be able to travel to any country that is a member of the court — and there are many such countries. Upon landing there, they will be arrested.
But another implication relates to the judicial reform struggle in Israel. One of the main justifications for the judicial activism of Israel's Supreme Court, particularly regarding the IDF's actions, was that it protected senior Israeli officials from facing trial at the ICC. But now, it's becoming clear that this claim was exaggerated, to say the least.
Attorney David Berliner is a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and Ono Academic College.