ICC issues arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Galant

(MENAFN) On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant, charging them with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The warrants, while symbolic, require all 124 states that are signatories to the Rome Statute to arrest Netanyahu and Galant if they enter their territories. This development follows growing international legal actions, including the International Court of Justice's recent ruling that Israel's Occupation is illegal, and South Africa’s ongoing case against Israel for alleged genocide in Gaza. While these legal actions carry significant symbolic weight, they underscore the limitations of international law, particularly in the face of Israel's continued military actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, which are supported by the United States. Despite the ICC’s attempts to hold Israel accountable, the lack of enforcement power in international law raises the question: what is the value of law if it cannot enforce its own decisions?

For decades, international law has been a cornerstone of the Palestinian struggle for justice, as Israel continues to exist and expand through violations of basic legal principles. However, despite numerous legal appeals and the overwhelming case against Israel’s colonization of Palestine, the situation on the ground remains unchanged. This apparent failure of international law to achieve tangible justice has left many questioning its real effectiveness. The structural limitations of international law, particularly in colonial contexts, reflect the imperial origins of the system. Developed in an era dominated by European colonial powers, international law was not designed to apply equally to all peoples. European jurists justified exceptions for colonial powers, including the use of violence and even genocide against colonized populations, under the guise of "civilized" behavior. This racial hierarchy, which allowed for "civilized" relations between imperialist nations, simultaneously permitted brutal colonial practices.

However, the 20th century saw colonized peoples strive to turn international law into a tool for liberation. As movements for independence gained momentum, they sought to reclaim international law and institutions from imperialist control. The decolonization efforts produced legal frameworks to challenge colonialism and apartheid, seen in cases from South Africa to Palestine. Despite these gains, the decolonization of international law is far from complete. The global balance of power still favors the global north, and the struggle to reshape international law into a truly just system remains ongoing. International law should not be viewed as a consistent and uniform system but rather as a battleground for colonial and anti-colonial forces.

The U.S. response to the ICC’s arrest warrants reflects the imperialist power's growing concern over the erosion of its hegemonic control. President Joe Biden’s rejection of the warrants and refusal to place Israel on equal footing with Hamas further reveals the double standards at play. By creating a distinction between Israel and Hamas, despite Israel’s far greater devastation of Palestinian lives, the U.S. is upholding a colonial model of justice that privileges one group over another. In conclusion, the recent ICC arrest warrants and international legal actions against Israel highlight the deep flaws in the international legal system and its limited capacity to bring about justice. The struggle for Palestinian liberation continues to expose the contradictions of international law and its unequal application.

MENAFN08012025000045015687ID1109068167