A man carries a placard with the image of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as people attend a protest march in support of the hostages kidnapped during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, in Jerusalem, on Nov. 27.Ammar Awad/Reuters
Global reaction to the International Criminal Court’s move to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, has ranged from satisfaction to condemnation – pretty much as one would expect on an issue as polarizing as the war in Gaza.
The ICC last week found there were “reasonable grounds” to believe Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as “civilian superiors” overseeing the war in Gaza for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare. The court further cited two Israeli attacks that it qualified as “intentionally directed against civilians” in Gaza.
The ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, the top Hamas commander behind the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, for his involvement in a long list of alleged crimes, including extermination, torture, rape, sexual violence, taking hostages and outrages upon personal dignity. Mr. Deif is believed to have been killed in an Israeli air strike in July, but the ICC said it was “not in a position to determine” whether he is dead.
U.S. President Joe Biden called the ICC’s move against the Israeli leaders “outrageous,” adding “whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.” The United States, like Israel, is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction.
Needless to say, by issuing arrest warrants on the same day for Mr. Netanyahu, the leader of a democratic country, and Mr. Deif, a known terrorist, the ICC provided plenty of fodder for critics who accuse chief prosecutor Karim Khan of politicizing the court.
Opinion: The ICC arrest warrant will hang over Netanyahu for the rest of his life
Though the ICC shared none of the evidence it has collected, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to have no qualms about executing the arrest warrant were the Israeli leader to travel to Canada, a founding member of ICC. “We stand up for international law, and we will abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts,” he said. “This is just who we are as Canadians.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly also rode the moral high horse: “We need accountability in this world, so, based on that, Canada will abide by its obligation under the ICC treaty.”
Yet, it is far from clear whether Canada, or any other member country, would be legally obligated to execute an ICC arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu. On Wednesday, France’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement suggesting he would be immune from ICC jurisdiction, since Israel is not party to the ICC. It also issued a thinly veiled critique of the ICC’s move by pointing out that both France and Israel are “democracies committed to the rule of law and to respect for a professional and independent justice system.” In other words, France is of the view that the Israeli judicial system is capable of prosecuting alleged war crimes committed by Mr. Netanyahu or any other official.
That is also the view of former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, a global crusader against antisemitism and the recent alleged target of an Iranian assassination plot. In an interview on CBC, Mr. Cotler called the ICC move a violation of its “foundational” principle of complementarity, under which the ICC cannot substitute itself for the independent judiciary of a democratic country.
“Not that Israeli officials should not be held accountable, but where Israelis are prepared to undertake and have undertaken the necessary investigations themselves, then the principle [of] complementarity should prevail,” he said.
Mr. Cotler also told the Media Line, a website covering Middle Eastern news, that he had warned Mr. Khan that issuing arrest warrants against Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant would “incentivize” antisemitism.
Indeed, the ICC warrants did provide fuel for anti-NATO protesters who marched last Friday in Montreal. An organizer cited them as justification for the protest, during which Mr. Netanyahu was burned in effigy. One protester was filmed making a Nazi salute and, at another point, saying “the Final Solution is coming.” Others shattered windows and lit cars on fire.
“What we saw on the streets of Montreal last night was appalling,” Mr. Trudeau wrote the following day on X. “Acts of antisemitism, intimidation, and violence must be condemned wherever we see them.”
Too little, too late? At the very least, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Joly should have taken the time to consider the implications before expressing their willingness to abide by the ICC warrants.
Their comments betrayed their tendency, since the Oct. 7 attacks, to pander to anti-Israel sentiment among their own supporters. Their condemnations of Israel’s conduct of the war – a tragedy of epic proportions – have repeatedly left out critical details about Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields and its utter disregard for the lives of the people it claims to be fighting for.