In 2002, President George W. Bush signed a bill into law that gave the U.S. president the power to invade the Netherlands — or anywhere else on earth — in order to liberate an American citizen or citizen of a U.S. ally being detained for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, based in the Dutch city of The Hague. Among the lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill: then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.
While the president has yet to make good on this military threat, the law, which is still on the books, serves as good shorthand for the U.S. relationship to the international institution of justice. The bill was meant to fend off the specter of American troops standing trial for atrocities committed during the fledgling “war on terror,” but the U.S. horror of The Hague has its roots in the longstanding policy of unconditional support for Israel.
That same year Bush and his Israeli counterpart, Ariel Sharon, withdrew the U.S. and Israeli signatures from the Rome Statute, the treaty that formed the ICC. U.S.-Israel opposition to any attempt by the court to hold Israel accountable for possible international law violations has been ironclad ever since.
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant on Thursday, alleging that the leaders intentionally blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza in order to target Palestinian civilians and targeted civilians with military strikes on Gaza. They also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Muhammad Deif, while also rescinding warrants for Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, two Hamas leaders killed by Israel. Israel has also claimed to have killed Deif.
The warrants, issued by a panel of three judges, require the 124 member nations of the Rome Statute to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant and turn them over to Hague officials for trial the moment that either wanted man steps onto their soil. The ranks of member nations includes many U.S. allies, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, along with most of the rest of the world.
Although the Biden administration has yet to comment on the arrest warrants, when ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan first applied for warrants in May, the president called the idea “outrageous.”
“Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas,” Biden continued during a White House event to celebrate Jewish Heritage Month. “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”
Biden has kept his word in the months since, continuing to send arms to Israel and vote down all international measures that criticize Israeli conduct — or even call for a ceasefire — in the United Nations. In September, the United States voted against a U.N. resolution that called for the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, with 124 of the 181 U.N. General Assembly nations voting in favor of the measure.
On Wednesday, the Biden administration vetoed yet another ceasefire resolution in the U.N. Security Council — the fourth such resolution it has voted down. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Robert Woods claimed that the resolution did not include calls for an immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, despite the fact that the document called for an unconditional release of the hostages. Among the 15 nations on the council, the U.S. was the lone dissenting vote.
“I think we’re heading for a significant showdown on international law between the United States and the rest of the world,” said Michael Lynk, an international law expert who served as the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. “I think this is going to open up an even wider breach between the U.S. on the one hand, in international law, and most of the rest of the world on the other.”
“I think we’re heading for a significant showdown on international law between the United States and the rest of the world.”
The ICC arrest warrants place U.S. and Israel allies in an awkward position: maintain U.S. partnership or respect its obligations to The Hague and international law. So far, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government would “stand up for international law” and “abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts.” France and the U.K. have expressed similar support, but Germany, which also provides military aid to Israel, has yet to issue any official statement on how it plans to respond.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also faces an ICC arrest warrant, has had to alter his travel plans to avoid arrest. In September, however, he was able to travel to and from Mongolia, a Rome Statute signatory, without incident.
In addition to the ICC warrants, next September is the expiration of the U.N. deadline for Israel to cease its occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem. Also, the U.N.’s top court, the International Court of Justice, is continuing to oversee the genocide trial South Africa has brought against Israel, but that process will likely take several more years.
“This alliance the United States has with Israel has really stained the image of the United States to the rest of the world,” said Lynk.
He expressed his support for the ICC’s warrant announcement, emphasizing that it represents a rare form of accountability that is lacking in the international community, especially in light of Israel’s actions in Gaza and occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967.
He highlighted the fact that Israel has continually crossed red lines without facing consequences, due to the lack of political will from the international community to demand accountability and end impunity.
The U.S. has a long history of opposing accountability measures for Israel, including the Rome Statute and the formation of The Hague’s criminal court, citing concerns that these statutes criminalize Israel’s settlements in the West Bank. The U.S. has also opposed investigations into alleged Israeli atrocities and attempts to hold American military members accountable for war crimes.
While the U.S. has criticized the ICC’s due process when applied to Israel, it has supported the court’s actions in other cases, such as issuing arrest warrants for Russian officials involved in atrocities in Ukraine.
Human rights groups have praised the ICC warrants, raising questions about whether President Biden could be held accountable for supporting Israel’s military aggression in Gaza through significant military aid.
Despite legal precedent for holding arms suppliers accountable for complicity in war crimes, it is unlikely that charges would be brought against U.S. officials for aiding Israel’s atrocities due to limited judicial resources. Please rephrase.
Source link
