This Tuesday, there were reactions to the arrest warrant request made by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor against Hamas leaders and the Israeli government. If the warrants are issued, it will be the first time that the court in The Hague, which is responsible for investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity, has asked its members to arrest a Western leader and ally of the United States: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
From the White House, the response was predictable. Joe Biden described the decision as “outrageous” and “disgraceful” as ICC prosecutor Karim Khan announced on Monday. “Despite what this prosecutor insists, there is no equality between Israel and Hamas. “We will always stand by Israel against threats to its security,” the head of state stressed.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken echoed the president’s words, calling it a “deeply wrong decision” that would make negotiations for a ceasefire and the release of hostages in the Gaza Strip difficult.
Without providing further details, Blinken pledged that the Biden administration would be “happy to work with (the Republican majority) Congress” to provide an adequate response to the court’s decision.
In Germany, 123 UN Karim Khan’s statements caused outrage as one of the member states recognized the Rome Statute and accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC and was forced to comply with the arrest warrants issued.
“At the same time, requesting arrest warrants for Hamas leaders and two Israeli leaders leads to a misrepresentation of equality,” the German Foreign Ministry said in a statement released Monday night. “It is the right and duty of the government of Israel to protect and defend its citizens (from Hamas violence).”
If the warrants go into effect, Berlin faces a dilemma: either maintaining a longstanding policy of protecting the “rules-based international order” and subjecting it to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court; Or maintaining support for the Israeli regime while still remembering the killing of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany.
Other criticism came from Austria, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, which questioned the usefulness of ICC warrants and questioned the comparisons between “representatives of a democratically elected government” and “leaders of an Islamic terrorist organization”. Head of Government Czech.
Positions at odds with those taken by governments in Paris, Brussels or Madrid, they reiterated their commitment to the court in The Hague and support in the “fight against impunity”.
“For months we have been warning of the need to strictly observe international humanitarian law and, in particular, of the unacceptable loss of civilian life in the Gaza Strip and the lack of adequate humanitarian access,” the French foreign ministry said. Report. “France supports the International Criminal Court, its independence and the fight against impunity in all circumstances.”
However, the head of French diplomacy, Stéphane Sejourne, insisted that the ICC’s demands, although announced at the same time, should not be understood as “equivalent”. “On the one hand there is a terrorist group that celebrates the October 7 attacks (…) on the other hand, democracy, Israel, must respect international law while fighting a war it did not start”, he said. French National Assembly.
According to the ICC Prosecutor’s Office, there are grounds to conclude that both Hamas and Israel have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Therefore, arrest warrants were requested for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant; and, on the Hamas side, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Taif and Ismail Haniyeh. Evidence presented by the prosecution will now be analyzed by ICC judges, a process that could take months.
This Tuesday, the Israeli government urged “nations of the civilized world” to speak out against prosecutor Karim Khan’s request and declare that they will not honor such warrants if they are issued.
“Hardcore explorer. Extreme communicator. Professional writer. General music practitioner. Prone to fits of apathy.”