Daily Alert Archives

What the ICC Gets Wrong about Israel

(X) John Spencer - In May, the International Criminal Court announced applications for warrants for the arrests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant. As someone who has visited the frontlines in this war, and who has written about, visited, and engaged in various urban battles over the past two decades as a U.S. Army officer and researcher, I believe the ICC's decision is wrong about Israel. Worse, the ruling could perversely have the opposite effect intended: By holding all states to such a high standard when it comes to avoiding civilian harm, governments may feel hamstrung to respond to attacks in the future, even in self-defense. That could have a chilling effect on countries that adhere to international legal norms, while providing a bonanza for rogue states like Russia or nonstate actors like Hamas that ignore these norms. In Gaza, the terrain, the density of tunnels under population centers, the nature of the enemy, and the presence of hostages all combine to make this war an exceptionally fraught one for Israel to fight bloodlessly. What I saw in Gaza convinced me that Israel has taken the necessary steps to avoid civilian casualties. As the war continues, Israel continues to announce temporary evacuations instructing civilians to move out of harm's way. Israel has gone above and beyond what is traditionally required of armies. The ICC has accused Israel of "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare," and "intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population." This kind of accusation ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary which I saw firsthand. Israel has implemented almost all the civilian harm mitigation practices required of urban warfare and legal norms spelled out by international humanitarian law (IHL), as well as created a few new ones no military has ever tried. The IDF fields legal officers at the brigade and division level to approve legitimate targets and provide guidance to avoid civilian casualties and violations of IHL. The ICC ruling makes a mockery out of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows countries to act in self-defense. If any country takes all these precautions and is still considered beyond the pale of modern war, can any country that tries to adhere to international humanitarian legal norms fight wars at all, even to defend themselves? By singling out the Israeli leadership for war crimes, the result could be a blank check to rogue actors like Hamas as well as rogue states like Russia, Iran, or North Korea. The IDF should be commended for its efforts to reduce civilian harm, not charged in an international court alongside Hamas leaders. The writer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point.
2024-07-16 00:00:00
Full Article