How long can the West maintain double standards around the Russo-Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict? 

Last week, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and a leader from Hamas, for “crimes against humanity and war crimes” in the ongoing Middle East conflict. There are some practical complications: for example, Israel is not itself a member of this institution and some of the Hamas leaders sought by the ICC have been killed throughout the conflict, but the shockwaves of the warrants have been felt far and wide.

United States President, Joe Biden, condemned the warrants stating: “The ICC issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” This is worlds away from the adulation Biden rained upon the ICC when it issued the same warrants against Russian President Vladimir Putin in response to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. At the time, Biden expressed that arrest warrants against Putin were “justified” arguing that his Russian counterpart had “clearly committed war crimes.”

Closer to home, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, of “effectively standing with Hamas” for indicating that the United Kingdom would implement the arrest warrants (as it ought to do as a member of the court) against Netanyahu. Johnson wrote: “The Hague court is designed for tyrants – like Putin or Milosevic – who have no chance of facing justice in their own country. The ICC is supposed to ‘complement’ any potential failure of due process. But the whole point of Israel is that it is a functioning democracy, with a highly active culture of litigation.” One rule for thee but not for me… 

In November 2023, Keir Starmer was threatening and punishing Labour MPs who voted in favour of an immediate ceasefire motion in the House of Commons. Today, Boris Johnson is, in essence, accusing the Labour leader of supporting terrorism. This represents a drastic departure from Johnson’s government praise for the ICC when it issued arrest warrants against Putin. A spokesperson stated at the time: “Obviously, formally it will be for a criminal court to make that ruling but I think no one can be in any doubt that what we’re seeing daily, almost hourly now, are horrific acts that would certainly appear to be war crimes.” 

In August 2024, Hareetz — an Israeli newspaper now censored by the government — declared the conflict “one of the bloodiest of the 21st century”, with over 40,000 civilians killed in the alleged pursuit of around 97 hostages still being held by Hamas militants in Palestine. This represents an extremely conservative estimate, with the Lancet estimating that 186,000 Gazan deaths could be attributable to the conflict.

Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. The murder, torture and ill-treatment of civilians (and of prisoners of war) are also war crimes. The targeting of aid workers, of religious buildings and of hospitals is equally considered to be a war crime. Mass killings, for example, the systematic targeting of residential zones, are also categorised as war crimes. The Israeli government has committed all of the above, many times over, throughout its campaign against Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond in the Middle East. What do the images of slaughtered children, women and men that have been live-streamed across everyone’s social media over the past year expose other than war crimes against humanity?

The International Criminal Court, based in the Hague, established in 2002 and holding 125 member states is governed by the Rome Stature. It describes itself as: 

The International Criminal Court investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.

The International Criminal Court stands accused of being deliberately prejudiced against countries in the Global South but has long been a darling of the West. Whether Israel — a country located in the Middle East — is part of the Global North or the South is a matter beyond the scope of this article. Whether the ICC is an effective mechanism of law enforcement is also beside the point: what does matter is that the ICC prosecutor’s decision in 2023 to issue arrest warrants against President Vladimir Putin was met with almost universal acclaim by the West.

Last week, however, the Israeli government’s response to the ICC’s arrest warrants was swift and, sadly, quite predictable. It accused the Court of antisemitism, even though one of the experts who advised the ICC on the arrest warrants (94-year-old international and humanitarian law scholar and former Israeli ambassador Theodor Meron) was himself a survivor of the Holocaust. 

The International Criminal Court now joins a very long list of global actors accused of antisemitism; including the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, UNICEF and anybody else who dares to question the Israeli government’s bombing of Palestine.

The concerns raised by the International Criminal Court are not fringe or unspeakable. In fact, most of the British public polled on the matter shared them. Polling conducted by Ipsos and published in October 2024 reports that 6 in 10 people think that “Israel’s military actions in Gaza during this conflict have gone too far.” 12 per cent said the balance was “about right” and only 6 per cent said it was “not far enough.” The feeling was strong even among Conservative voters, with 52 per cent agreeing that Israel’s military campaign has been excessive, while 71 per cent of Labour voters shared the same sentiment. 

When asked: “What involvement should the U.K. have in the current conflict in Israel and Gaza, if any,” 49 per cent of those surveyed said the UK should be “a neutral mediator” while twice as many respondents said that the UK “should support the Palestinians” (16 per cent) versus the number who said that the UK “should support Israel” (8 per cent). It is also worth noting that in the polling, most of the public assigned blame for the current conflict on the Israeli government (57 per cent) as opposed to Hamas (55 per cent). When asked: “Who do you think is most responsible for the current conflict in Israel and Gaza?,” 30 per cent of the British people surveyed assigned responsibility to the Israeli government, as opposed to the 27 per cent who blamed Hamas. 

Moreover, 73 per cent of the British people surveyed support an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between both Israel and Hamas. Ipsos analysis states: 

The criteria that the UK public feel are most important to be included when negotiating a ceasefire are the release of all Israeli civilians being held hostage by Hamas (53%), a mutual agreement from both Israel and Hamas that there will be no future attacks on one another (52%), the opening of the Rafah crossing to allow the free flow of aid and supplies into Gaza (43%), and opening negotiations for a two-state solution (43%).

Is the dismantlement of the international world order that the West proclaims so vociferously to hold so dear worth it?

Irrespective of the public views, the principles of international law should apply equally without fear or favour contingent on which actor is conducting what military campaign and where it takes place. Either the International Criminal Court is a powerful tool against unlawfulness or it is a kangaroo court easily manipulated by corrupt officials, but it cannot be both. 

The West can choose to listen to the courageous voices of civilians on the ground, the strength of public sentiment locally, and the almost universal condemnation from international human rights organisations, or it can decide to follow the Israeli government down a dystopian path of lawlessness and annihilation. The objectives of its military campaign remain forever shifting and uncertain, so I would like to ask those supporting the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza: is the dismantlement of the international world order that the West proclaims so vociferously to hold so dear worth it?