On November 21, 2024, judges at the International Criminal Court ruled that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are criminally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza. This ruling follows a request over six months ago by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
Flood of Misleading Israeli Statements Against the ICC
Israeli politicians across the political spectrum have rejected the ICC’s decision. Netanyahu’s office described the arrest warrants as “a modern-day Dreyfus trial,” referring to the infamous 1894 trial of a French artillery captain of Jewish descent, widely regarded as a prominent example of antisemitism.
Netanyahu condemned the decision, calling the court “a biased and discriminatory political body.” He added, “Israel rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions and charges against it by the ICC,” asserting that “there is nothing more just than the war that Israel has been waging in Gaza since October 7, 2023.”
In a series of fiery statements, Israeli President Isaac Herzog condemned the ICC's ruling, calling it "a dark day for justice and humanity." Meanwhile, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir suggested a defiant response, saying the best way to respond would be to "impose Israeli sovereignty on the West Bank."
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar dismissed the court’s legitimacy, calling the decision “an attack on Israel’s right to self-defense.” Opposition leader Yair Lapid described the warrants as a “reward for terrorism.”
Even opposition figures, such as Avigdor Lieberman, a former defense minister under Netanyahu, joined the condemnation, describing the decision as a reflection of “international hypocrisy and double standards.”
U.S. Republican Senator Tom Cotton proposed invoking the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act,” known as the “Hague Invasion Act,” as leverage against the ICC. The legislation empowers the U.S. to take military action to protect its officials or allies from ICC prosecution.
International Reactions to the ICC's Decision
The ICC's ruling garnered backing from South Africa and several European countries, including the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, and France, all emphasizing the need to uphold the court's authority and decisions.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell reinforced this stance, stating that “the ICC’s rulings are binding on all parties to the Rome Statute and the EU.” In a statement shared on Platform X, Borrell described Gaza as “hell on earth” while criticizing the ongoing media blackout that prevents international journalists from entering the region.
He cautioned against the spread of misinformation and digital manipulation, accusing pro-Israel platforms of attempting to “undermine justice and shield perpetrators of violations from accountability.” Borrell also highlighted the troubling role of social media algorithms in fueling conflict, stating, “The algorithm of hate is more profitable than the algorithm of peace.” His comments underscored the dangers of monetized hostility and its impact on political and economic agendas.
Conversely, countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic opposed the decision. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán expressed solidarity with Netanyahu, affirming that Hungary would not enforce the court’s ruling. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala criticized the ICC’s move as “an unfair equivalence between a democratic state and an Islamic terrorist organization,” reinforcing Islamophobic rhetoric by equating Muslims and Islamic groups with terrorism.
Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg wrote on Platform X, “The ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant is utterly incomprehensible. International law is non-negotiable and applies everywhere, at all times. But this decision is a disservice to the court's credibility.”
Washington’s Strategy Against the ICC: Prioritizing Allies Over Justice
The U.S. Department of Defense strongly opposed the International Criminal Court's arrest warrants. Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh stated that the U.S. "categorically rejects" the ICC's decision, expressing concerns over what she described as the "hasty actions" of ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. Singh also reiterated that the ICC "lacks jurisdiction" in the case.
President Joe Biden also voiced his disapproval, rejecting any equivalence between Israel and Hamas. “We will always stand by Israel against any threats to its security,” he said. On the legislative front, 12 Republican senators threatened sanctions against the ICC, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune announcing plans to draft legislation targeting the court with punitive measures.
The U.S. has had long-standing tensions with the ICC, dating back to its inception. Washington declined to ratify the Rome Statute, citing the court as a potential threat to its sovereignty and that of its allies, particularly Israel.
Misinformation in U.S. Media: The New York Post and Fox News Coverage of the ICC Decision
Pro-Israel outlets like the New York Post and Fox News have adopted misleading narratives to defend Israel and discredit the ICC. The New York Post alleged that the ICC’s decision reflects “Jew-hatred” and is part of an orchestrated global effort to delegitimize Israel. The outlet framed the ruling as an attack on Israeli democracy, arguing that the ICC equated “Israel’s elected government” with Hamas leaders, whom it labeled as terrorists. To justify Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the New York Post claimed that residents there “are not suffering” and dismissed international reports of famine or a humanitarian crisis as “entirely false.”
The publication also focused on the events of October 7, 2023, describing Hamas' attack as a "campaign of murder, rape, and civilian kidnappings," using this to rationalize Israel's aggressive military response. Additionally, the newspaper accused the ICC and the United Nations of antisemitism, asserting that such bias is written into the DNA of the ICC. It argued that this alleged hostility toward Israel had been exacerbated by what it described as the Biden administration's capitulation to the "progressive left" within the Democratic Party. The New York Post also accused international institutions of lying and inciting against Israel for defending itself.
Meanwhile, Fox News portrayed the ICC as a politicized tool that weaponizes international law to "criminalize self-defense." The channel hosted prominent figures like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who described the court as "a serious joke" and called for severe sanctions against cooperating countries, even suggesting measures to "cripple their economies."
The network also amplified the views of legal scholar Avi Bell, who argued that the ICC prioritizes advancing a political agenda at Israel’s expense. Bell described the arrest warrants against Israeli leaders as an attempt to embolden “terrorists” rather than prosecute them.
Furthermore, both the New York Post and Fox News seized on allegations of misconduct against ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to question the institution’s credibility. They highlighted claims of harassment against Khan, emphasizing the internal crisis these accusations have caused, despite ongoing investigations that have yet to confirm any wrongdoing.
Khan has categorically denied the allegations, calling for an immediate investigation by the ICC’s Independent Oversight Mechanism. In a statement, he noted that both he and the ICC have faced systematic attacks and threats aimed at undermining their work. Khan emphasized that the claims lack merit, pointing to his three-decade career without prior complaints. He characterized the accusations as part of a smear campaign designed to discredit the court’s efforts to uphold justice.
Read More
Misinformation in Humanitarian Crises: Life-Threatening Consequences
The Year of Leaks: How the Gaza War Amplified Internal and External Leaks about Israel
