Sorry, Washington Post, the ICC Is Exactly the Right Venue to Hold Israel to Account
Does the Post editorial board, which published a farcical pro-Netanyahu, anti-ICC op-ed, even read the reporting of its own reporters?
It reads like satire. So perhaps we should file Sunday night’s Washington Post editorial board piece, indignantly responding to the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, under ‘Not The Onion.’
After all, this was the headline and subhead to their editorial, I kid you not:
The brutish honesty is almost admirable. In the eyes of the editorial board members of one of the West’s most esteemed newspapers, the ICC is obviously for Black and brown leaders (oh, and Vladimir Putin too). It’s not for the West and its allies.
To make its case, the editorial board engaged in historical revisionism, non-sequiturs, and brazen dishonesty.
So let’s break it down, one ridiculous and disingenuous statement after another.
"The ICC is putting the elected leaders of a democratic country with its own independent judiciary in the same category as dictators and authoritarians who kill with impunity.”
Sorry, are they seriously suggesting that a democratically elected leader cannot commit war crimes? Are we supposed to forget that Adolf Hitler and the rest of the Nazi war criminals rose to power through ‘democratic’ means? That they won elections, too?
Plus, if the Israeli military spends 13 months bombing hospitals and refugee camps, targeting children and journalists, and attacking marked humanitarian workers and medics and even American demonstrators – all to receive no consequence – is that not killing “with impunity”? (Each of those links above, dear reader, will take you to sharp reporting from the Washington Post.)
The Post’s editorial also takes issue with a possible equivocation between Hamas and Israel, or even between Israel and “dictators and authoritarians,” without spelling out why exactly it is wrong to call violence “violence,” regardless of the actor. (Incidentally, on Monday, former UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland told Mehdi that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza reminded him of Bashar al Assad’s bombardment of Ghouta and Aleppo in Syria.)
“To be sure, far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and maimed in Israel’s 13-month-long war against Hamas: more than 44,000 have died, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.”
Consider the rather shameful innuendo here that some of the 44,000 had it coming, given their alleged possible “combatant” status – or the phrasing “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and maimed,” as if there is some acceptable amount.
The Post editorial represents an establishment view that is driven by geopolitics, not morals: If Israeli forces kill tens of thousands of civilians while Hamas kills hundreds, one group remains a valued democratic ally, but the other is still a bunch of “terrorists.” That allyship is what automatically and conveniently precludes any condemnation of Israel.
“Hamas is to blame for sheltering among civilians and hiding their weapons and command centers in tunnels beneath populated areas.”
For one, the tired talking point doesn’t absolve the Israeli military of its culpability for the innocent people it has killed, nor does it address the numerous examples – documented by the Post’s own reporters! – of Israel bombing and killing civilians with no Hamas fighters in the vicinity. Moreover, to take this argument seriously, one also has to then question the ethics of the Israeli military putting its own headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv. Finally, one might imagine the Post being less flippant about peddling the lazy “human shield” talking point given, again, their own journalists reporting that Israeli soldiers have literally used Palestinians as human shields.
“But Israel, as a democratic country that is committed to human rights, must take responsibility for the civilian casualty toll.”
Here again, the suggestion that Israel’s (alleged) status as a democratic nation means it cannot be charged with war crimes, and that it would naturally take responsibility “for the civilian casualty toll.” But what does it mean for a military force to “take responsibility” for a death toll that it caused? Especially a military force that breezily claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that the vast majority of those it has killed in Gaza are “terrorists”?
"The ICC is supposed to become involved when countries have no means or mechanisms to investigate themselves. That is not the case in Israel."
Just in the case of Hind Rajab, the 6-year-old killed by Israeli forces, the US entrusted the Israeli government to investigate itself for the last 300 days; the Israeli government lied about the cooperation of humanitarian organizations in investigating the killing, or even about having done the killing in the first place. If this is how the Israeli government looks into the circumstances of the most infamous case of a child that it has killed, what then of the more than 17,000 other children it has killed since October 2023?
“To be sure, aid could have flowed in more quickly if Hamas had accepted a cease-fire deal to free the remaining hostages, but Hamas instead insisted on a withdrawal of all Israeli troops from Gaza and a permanent end to hostilities.”
This “to be sure” projection of reason comes at the end of a long paragraph in which the Washington Post editorial board members themselves cite Washington Post reporting to conclude that Israel has “fallen short” and “largely failed” in terms of surging humanitarian aid into Gaza, as demanded by the United States and the rest of the international community. The “to be sure” line is a desperate and transparent attempt by the authors to try and throw some blame Hamas’ way. (And note, the gall, apparently, of Hamas to insist on a “permanent” rather than temporary end to the bloodshed. How dare they?)
“Israel needs to be held accountable for its military conduct in Gaza. After the conflict’s end — which is long overdue — there will no doubt be Israeli judicial, parliamentary and military commissions of inquiry. Israel’s vibrant, independent media will do its own investigations.”
Will the Israeli media do its own investigation? Or, more specifically, will they be allowed? Hours before this Post editorial was published, the Israeli government ordered a boycott by officials of the government-critical newspaper Haaretz.
More broadly, there is, in fact, “doubt” about the possibility of a hard-nosed inquiry. Israel has a poor track record when it comes to prosecuting soldiers accused of war crimes. As Haaretz itself reported on Monday, there have been just 15 indictments filed against Israeli soldiers since the war began – none for cases involving the killing of detainees or civilians.
The Post cites the arrests of eight Israeli soldiers for alleged abuse against Palestinian detainees as cause for optimism. But, some Israelis, including lawmakers – egged on by top-level Israeli officials, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – rioted on the soldiers' behalf. Some soldiers were released, while one even became a media darling.
“President-elect Donald Trump, in his first term, took a hostile stance toward the ICC. Mr. Trump imposed travel sanctions against ICC prosecutors and staff, which President Joe Biden lifted. The ill-considered arrest warrants against Israel only give Mr. Trump a new reason to halt American cooperation with the court, at a time when it’s needed for Russia, Sudan, Myanmar and conflicts elsewhere that atrocities are being committed with impunity and the victims have no other recourse.”
Think about how peculiar this argument is. The editorial board members, while again (falsely) implying Israel is not committing violence with impunity and that Palestinians in Gaza have other recourse, are arguing that punishing Israel for committing war crimes gives Trump more ammunition to attack an important international court – that the authors themselves are attacking in this editorial.
The ICC, they suggest, must maintain the legitimacy necessary to punish Putin for his war crimes, but only by undermining that legitimacy in allowing Netanyahu to remain unaccountable for his.
Got it?
Sign up here to make sure you get my column, ‘Subtext with Prem,’ in your inbox. Please share your thoughts in the comments, and feel free to send any tips here.
Great rebuttal, Prem. Very well written, with point by point evidence to refute the Post’s claims. Thank you for this analysis, and for your continued work in the press briefings.
The Post reflects the same elite opinion that prevailed in the recent Senate vote to continue arming the germicidal Israeli regime. This minority opinion negates the majority of US citizens who want the killing to stop. "Democracy?"