The clash between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Israel over arrest warrants for key Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, brings to the forefront a longstanding debate about accountability, self-defence, and international justice. At the heart of this dispute is the charge that Israeli actions in Gaza may constitute war crimes, alongside charges and warrants by ICC against Hamas leaders for crimes against humanity.

However, the response to these allegations reveals deep divisions within the international community, particularly between nations supporting Israel’s right to self-defence and those advocating for the unyielding application of international law. The ICC, in seeking arrest warrants for Israeli officials, claims there is reasonable evidence to suggest that their actions in Gaza, including deliberate attacks on civilians, starvation as a weapon of war, and mass killings, may constitute war crimes. This move follows accusations against Hamas leaders for their role in the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, which resulted in significant loss of life and hostage-taking.

While the ICC’s mission is to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable, the response to its actions has been far from uniform. Israel, not being a signatory to the Rome Statute, rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction and accuses the prosecutor of drawing false equivalences between Israel and Hamas, a group Israel designates as a terrorist organisation. The Israeli government’s firm stance is rooted in its belief that it is acting in self-defence, particularly after Hamas initiated an attack on Israeli soil, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and the capture of hostages. Israel argues that its military operations are lawful under international law, designed to dismantle Hamas’s military infrastructure and protect its citizens. This narrative of self-defence is echoed by key allies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which have expressed outrage over the ICC’s move, framing it as an unjust attack on a democratic state defending itself against terrorism. However, this justification raises critical questions about the proportionality of Israel’s response and the humanitarian consequences of its actions.

The high civilian toll in Gaza, which has reportedly surpassed 35,000 deaths, challenges the notion that self-defence can justify indiscriminate military actions that disproportionately affect civilians. Supporters of the ICC’s move argue that no party to a conflict should be above the law, and international justice must transcend political alliances. At the same time, European reactions have varied, with some nations like France and Belgium reiterating the importance of the ICC’s independence and its role in combating impunity. These countries insist that crimes committed in Gaza, regardless of the perpetrator, must be prosecuted at the highest level. Yet, the simultaneous pursuit of warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders has led to concerns over creating a false equivalence between a state actor engaged in military operations and a militant group that uses terror as its strategy.