Scrap the ICC: A Court That Can’t Distinguish Terrorists from Defenders Is Worse Than Useless

 

The ICC’s selective persecution of Israel reeks of corruption, bias, and an anti-Semitic agenda—it's time to dismantle this hypocritical institution that has turned justice into a political witch hunt. In plain English, the fact that the ICC targets a nation defending itself against terrorism, while ignoring dictators and war criminals in powerful states, exposes it as nothing more than a political tool—and it's time to scrap it for good.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) seems to be testing the boundaries of audacity, with its recent issuance of arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. There is something both hypocritical and absurd in the timing and selection of targets for these warrants. It has become increasingly evident that the ICC, initially envisioned as a beacon of international justice, has turned into a politically driven institution—a toothless tiger roaring only at vulnerable and politically unpopular targets. And here we are again, observing its overreaching attempt to criminalize Israel—a democracy that fights for its survival amid threats that most nations can only begin to comprehend.

Let’s face the facts. The ICC's move to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant is not just controversial; it’s laughably absurd. Israel has always been in the crosshairs of the ICC, despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the foundational treaty of the ICC. The real question is: Why does the ICC have the audacity to assert jurisdiction over Israel when even basic rules of its founding document do not grant it this power?

Israel is not a member of the ICC, and therefore the Court’s authority over the actions of Israeli officials is questionable at best and a complete overreach at worst. The ICC appears to be making a habit of imposing its will on nations whose sovereignty it should respect. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been a figure of international attention, and his recent role in the Gaza conflict, particularly regarding the operations against Hamas, gave the ICC a convenient excuse to single him out for targeting. But the real underlying current here is the Court’s attempt to score political points with those who oppose Israel’s existence—an agenda that reeks of partiality and political bias.

In the past, the ICC's credibility has been consistently undermined by accusations of bias and inefficacy. Since its inception in 2002, it has primarily focused on African nations. Let's not forget the glaring historical reality: of the first 25 cases investigated by the ICC, an overwhelming majority were from Africa. This disproportionate focus led to many African nations expressing strong opposition to what they termed "neo-colonial judicial practices." They accused the ICC of being a weapon wielded by powerful Western nations against their weaker, often post-colonial counterparts. The question arises, why such a narrow scope? It seems that the ICC has mastered the art of punching down rather than standing up against the true global power brokers.

There’s a glaring double standard in how the ICC picks its battles. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine or China's human rights abuses against the Uyghurs. Where is the ICC in those situations? The ICC is suspiciously quiet. This selective justice—the kind that ignores the world's most egregious violations while focusing on politically convenient targets—proves how far the Court has strayed from its original mission. It was created as a safeguard for justice but has instead transformed into an instrument that more closely resembles political theater.

The allegations against Netanyahu and Gallant are related to supposed "war crimes" carried out during the Gaza conflict. This conflict, like so many others involving Israel, was sparked by an unprovoked series of rocket attacks by Hamas, a terrorist organization that has sworn to destroy Israel. It is crucial to recognize that in the chaos of conflict, it becomes all too easy to point fingers. However, even in the fog of war, the reality remains: Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism. Prime Minister Netanyahu, regardless of one's personal view on his policies, was acting within his right to protect his citizens. The same can be said for Yoav Gallant, whose duty as Defense Minister was to ensure Israel’s safety from both internal and external threats. The ICC, it seems, does not distinguish between an aggressor and a defender, and this fundamental blindness makes their warrants laughable.

On top of the already questionable legitimacy of the arrest warrants, one cannot overlook the bureaucratic and financial bloat that characterizes the ICC. According to reports, the ICC’s operational budget for 2023 was roughly €154 million, funded by member states. For all the money that is poured into this supposedly impartial court, what do we have to show for it? The Court has only secured a handful of convictions since its inception—perhaps 10 or 11 at most, and most of those were against African warlords that the world had already turned its back on. The ICC has spent over a billion euros since its establishment, yet its contribution to global justice has been little more than a performance—a shadow play for an audience that is growing weary of its lack of results.

In 2020, even the Trump administration sanctioned ICC officials, accusing the Court of overstepping its mandate when it began probing alleged war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Although these sanctions were eventually lifted by the Biden administration, they serve as a reminder that the ICC’s credibility issues go beyond mere bias; they touch on sovereignty and the perception of the Court as an institution that lacks proper checks and balances. An organization that claims to fight for justice should not be seen as a rogue entity, but the ICC has made a habit of playing fast and loose with its jurisdictional reach.

The implications of targeting Israel are equally troubling for the already fragile balance in the Middle East. Israel is often portrayed as the aggressor, but in reality, it is a country that has to make impossible decisions to ensure its survival. Israel’s enemies, notably Hamas and Hezbollah, have no qualms about using civilians as human shields, launching rockets from hospitals and schools, and exploiting their own people for propaganda purposes. By issuing warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, the ICC is sending a dangerous message: defending yourself, even against terrorist aggression, could land you in The Hague. The Court's misguided focus risks emboldening terrorists while undermining democratic nations that abide by international rules of warfare.

To illustrate how deeply flawed the ICC’s approach is, consider that in the same month the Court decided to go after Netanyahu and Gallant, it completely ignored credible reports from Amnesty International detailing Chinese abuses against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Not only is this selective application of justice unacceptable, but it also underscores a deep hypocrisy within international legal institutions. A court that chooses to ignore mass detentions, forced labor, and human rights violations on an industrial scale while simultaneously claiming to seek justice in Gaza cannot be taken seriously.

This brings us to the lifestyle of those at the helm of the ICC—judges and prosecutors who live comfortably off the contributions of member states. Reports have indicated that the annual salary for an ICC judge is approximately €180,000, not including benefits. These individuals are handsomely compensated for work that often results in little to no tangible outcomes. It’s difficult to justify these expenditures when the return is a Court that appears to serve the interests of a few rather than uphold universal justice. Justice that only serves the interests of those who can afford it is not justice at all—it’s merely a commodity, traded in a market of political favors.

The world does need an international judicial body, but it needs one that is genuinely impartial, effective, and unafraid to challenge powerful states when necessary. The ICC has proven time and again that it is none of these things. It has become a rogue institution, driven not by a pursuit of global justice, but by political motivations and self-interest. Perhaps it’s time to scrap the ICC altogether and reimagine what global justice should look like—a justice that doesn’t pick and choose based on political convenience but holds everyone accountable, from the smallest despots to the largest superpowers.

In the end, what good is a watchman who sleeps through the night but wakes only to harass the neighbor whose door was locked all along? The ICC, with its bloated bureaucracy, questionable credibility, and selective outrage, has lost the plot. It’s time for the international community to either reform it entirely or consign it to the ash heap of history—a fitting end for an institution that has become more theater than tribunal.