US intervenes as ICC mulls war crime warrants for Netanyahu

As the ICC prepares to potentially issue arrest warrants for high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for war crimes, a closer look at the concerted efforts by the U.S. and Israel to prevent these legal actions.


The looming possibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top officials has sparked a major international and diplomatic response. With allegations of war crimes in the Gaza Strip intensifying, both the U.S. and Israeli governments are engaged in strategic maneuvers to influence the ICC’s decisions.

The ICC, established to prosecute individuals for international crimes, including war crimes and genocide, has turned its attention to the occupied Palestinian territories. Initiated in 2021, this investigation targets several high-ranking Israeli officials, implicating them in severe allegations, including the deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Notably, Israel, like the U.S., does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction and has consistently refused to cooperate with its investigations.

Historically, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been tightly knit, with the U.S. being Israel’s principal arms supplier and a key diplomatic ally. This relationship is now pivotal as both nations assert that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israeli actions, citing non-membership to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.

The severity of the charges cannot be understated. Reports suggest that the ICC’s focus will likely center on accusations that Israel “deliberately starved Palestinians in Gaza.” Such charges extend to several of Israel’s defense echelons, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi. The intensity of these allegations was compounded when a human rights group listed dozens of Israeli commanders suspected of violating international law during the recent Gaza conflict, heightening the stakes of the ICC’s potential actions.

Amidst these grave allegations, Netanyahu is reported to be under significant stress, engaging in what has been described as a “nonstop push over the telephone” to lobby against the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants. This includes direct appeals to the Biden administration, which has itself shown a complex stance towards the ICC. While the U.S. has supported the ICC’s actions against Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, it opposes the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli officials.

The campaign against the ICC’s potential warrants is not limited to private diplomatic channels. Public statements by U.S. officials and influential American newspapers have suggested that actions against Israeli leaders could precede similar measures against Americans and Britons, escalating the situation to a broader international concern.

The potential for ICC arrest warrants has triggered varied responses globally and domestically within the U.S. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has publicly called for the ICC to “stand down immediately” on this matter. Simultaneously, editorials from prominent publications like The Wall Street Journal warn of the broader implications for international accountability if the ICC proceeds against Israeli officials.

Contrasting these views are opinions from figures like Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute, who criticize the U.S. involvement as an unnecessary protection of Netanyahu from the legal consequences of his actions, suggesting a discord within U.S. policy circles about how to handle the situation.

Should the ICC go forward with issuing arrest warrants, the consequences could be profound not only for Israeli-U.S. relations but also for the broader framework of international law. Such actions might set a precedent that impacts how global governance bodies address allegations of war crimes and could influence the geopolitical dynamics involving ICC member states and non-member states alike.

An Israeli government source stated: “We are operating where we can,” signaling a robust and determined defense against the ICC’s moves.


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.