US President Joe Biden has sharply criticized the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue war crimes arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, calling it “outrageous.” This reaction underscores the deepening divide between the United States and several European nations regarding the ICC’s authority and decisions.
The arrest warrants, issued in connection with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, accuse Netanyahu and Gallant of criminal responsibility for acts committed during the conflict, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war, murder, persecution, and inhumane acts. For Deif, the charges are more severe, including murder, torture, and sexual violence. The ICC’s findings are rooted in events that began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. Israel’s subsequent military retaliation has resulted in significant casualties, with at least 44,000 people reported dead in Gaza, according to Hamas-controlled health sources.
Biden’s reaction highlights the United States’ staunch support for Israel. In his statement, Biden emphasized that “whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence none between Israel and Hamas.” He reaffirmed that the US would “always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” This strong stance sets the US apart from several European nations, which have expressed respect for the ICC’s independence. The British government, for instance, has reiterated its commitment to upholding the court’s decisions, while other European nations like France, the Netherlands, and Italy have similarly voiced support for the ICC.
Netanyahu, in response to the arrest warrant, decried the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic” and likened it to the infamous Dreyfus affair, a historic case of anti-Jewish sentiment in France. He firmly rejected the allegations, claiming that Israel had provided 700,000 tons of aid to Gaza, including food and warnings to civilians about impending strikes. Netanyahu insisted that Israel would not recognize the ICC’s authority, highlighting the difference between Israel’s actions and Hamas’s tactics, which he accused of using Gaza’s civilian population as human shields.
Gallant, who was dismissed as defense minister earlier this month, also rejected the ICC’s findings. He called the court’s decision “equally ridiculous” and argued that it unfairly equated Israel’s defensive actions with Hamas’s acts of terror, which he claimed included “the murder of babies, the rape of women, and the abduction of the elderly.” His remarks reflect the broader Israeli narrative that their military operations are a justified response to Hamas’s aggression.
The ICC’s arrest warrants come amid growing international concern over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with the United Nations warning of “diminishing conditions for survival” for Palestinians under Israeli siege. Despite this, the international community remains divided on the legitimacy of the ICC’s actions. While many European countries stand behind the court, Israel’s rejection of its jurisdiction is significant, as the country, along with the US, is not a member of the ICC. This complicates the court’s ability to enforce the warrants.
The war, which has now lasted over a month, has resulted in massive casualties and has drawn the world’s attention to the conduct of both Israel and Hamas. The ICC’s involvement signals the increasing pressure on international institutions to address alleged war crimes in real time. However, with Israel’s refusal to cooperate and the US’s opposition to the court’s mandate, it remains uncertain whether the arrest warrants will have any practical impact.
As the conflict continues, the world is left to grapple with the complexity of international law, the politicization of war crimes accusations, and the challenging dynamics of global alliances. The ICC’s actions may set an important precedent, but they also highlight the fractures in global diplomacy over how to handle accountability in modern conflicts.
