The ICC vs. Israel: A Modern Dreyfus Trial?

How a Politicized Court Targets Democratic Leaders While Ignoring Mullahs and Dictators

Bibi Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant are unlikely to have lost much sleep over ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan's presumptuous issuance of arrest warrants. Stripping politicians of immunity and obliging them to answer to self-proclaimed investigative magistrates is the dream of human rights bureaucrats. However, the ICC's case against Israel highlights the dysfunctionality and shortcomings of globalized justice. It reminds us that, while we assume such courts will target villains, dictators, and bandits often evade the judicial apparatus, democratic leaders become its primary targets.

Before the ICC's establishment in the 1990s, skeptics warned it could become politicized—a self-aggrandizing judicial monstrosity. These predictions have come true, as the ICC now serves as a vehicle for the enemies of the West to prosecute democratic leaders.

Israel is not even a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. However, the ICC claims jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories, as Palestine is recognized as a member state—even though it does not meet the legal criteria for statehood.

The ICC's recognition of Palestine is a contentious decision rooted more in political symbolism than clear legal principles. Palestine lacks the traditional hallmarks of statehood, and its recognition reflects the influence of a UN membership that is 60% undemocratic and includes 30% adversaries of the West. Arguments grounded in uti possidetis juris, the Oslo Accords, and the lack of Palestinian independence refute the ICC's claim to jurisdiction over Israeli actions in these territories. Uti possidetis juris is a principle of international law ensuring newly independent states inherit the administrative boundaries of their predecessors, preserving territorial integrity during decolonization or state formation. It was applied in Latin America, Africa, post-Soviet states, post-Yugoslavia, and Israel.

By recognizing Palestine, the ICC reveals its political agenda and raises questions about its impartiality and credibility. Operating as an overreaching tool of judicial activism shaped by external political influences, the ICC has strayed far from being an independent arbiter of justice, devolving into something resembling a kangaroo court.

Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of ICC, has been criticized for his biased prosecutorial decisions. For years, he and the UN have ignored the egregious impunity enjoyed by dictators and zealots like Khamenei, Erdogan, Akhundzada, Putin, Assad, and Maduro. Their failure to hold despots accountable while targeting democratic leaders further revokes their legitimacy. While the ICC requires a UN Security Council (UNSC) referral to exercise jurisdiction over non-member states, vetoes by permanent members like Russia and China have shielded Syria and Iran. This dysfunction underscores the need for UNSC reform if not outright replacement.

Khan's accusation of a deliberate Israeli policy to starve Gazans is baseless and lacks evidence. Reports consistently show Hamas diverting humanitarian aid intended for Gazan civilians. Videos document Hamas operatives seizing aid trucks, and civilians report that Hamas stores stolen supplies in warehouses, depriving them of essential resources. However, the ICC focuses on Israel's defensive actions while neglecting Hamas' use of civilians as human shields and other well-documented war crimes. Undeniably, Israel's internal investigations and adherence to international laws make ICC interference both redundant and unjustified.

Netanyahu dismissed Khan's actions, calling them "a modern Dreyfus trial" that would ultimately fail. Public trust in Khan's impartiality and integrity has further deteriorated following recent allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

From 2014 to 2024, the ICC's cumulative budget exceeded €1.6 billion, yet it only achieved five convictions, of which two were later overturned. The three upheld cases include Germain Katanga (2014) for war crimes in the DRC, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi (2016) for destroying cultural heritage in Mali, and Bosco Ntaganda (2019) for war crimes in the DRC. With an average cost of €533 million per conviction, these minor, regionally contained cases highlight the court's staggering inefficiency and negligible global impact.

To this date, the Nuremberg Trials remain the only successful international tribunal. They succeeded due to the unique circumstances surrounding Nazi crimes: their enormity, the proximity in time and space, and the Allies' consensus on Germany's denazification. The ICC lacks such conditions, Nuremberg's focused purpose, and a temporary nature.

"Other things being equal, the best justice is local justice." Temporary, focused tribunals like Nuremberg and regional or national courts close to affected populations are the most effective in delivering justice. A permanent, politicized ICC has become a tool of selective justice, undermining the very principles it was created to uphold. Instead, we should invest in strengthening national legal systems and establishing ad hoc tribunals for specific conflicts. This approach is cost-efficient, respects sovereignty, and avoids the pitfalls of an unaccountable global judiciary. As history demonstrates, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done—and the ICC, in its current form, is ill-equipped to meet this standard.