Rob Clark
Curia’s Head of Foreign PolicyDiscussing the issuance of criminal arrest warrants by ICC prosecutor Karim Ahmad against Israeli and Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes following the 7 October Hamas massacre in Israel. The warrants have sparked political controversy in both the UK and the US, with significant implications for international relations and domestic politics.
Decisions by the International Criminal Court
This week the International Criminal Court ’s (ICC) leading prosecutor, British King’s Counsel (KC) Karim Ahmad, issued criminal arrest warrants for the leaders of both Israel and terrorist organisation Hamas, over their respective actions since the 7 October Hamas massacre in Israel.
Karim Ahmad – once the lead defender for former Liberian President Charles Taylor’s unsuccessful war crimes and crimes against humanity defence team – has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, in addition to Hamas’ terrorist leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, and his deputies Mohammed Deif, the commander of its Qassam Brigades military wing, and Ismail Haniyeh, the head of its political bureau. All three men are widely acknowledged to have been heavily involved in the 7 October massacre.
Ahmad’s proposed arrest warrants have cited ‘murder’ and ‘elimination’ amongst both the Israeli government’s suspected war crimes, as well as Hamas’. Whilst Hamas’ also include ‘torture’, ‘the taking of hostages’, and ‘sexual violence’, Israel’s includes ‘starvation of a civilian population’ as a very specific, and central, focus of Ahmad’s basis for claiming Israel’s dereliction of legal responsibility.
Whilst Israel has limited at times the international aid convoys entering Gaza, this has been done on security grounds, and on the grounds of Hamas terrorists seizing aid shipments and not distributing to the population, only to fuel its war machine against Israel instead. Further worsening the question of starvation in Gaza has been Egypt’s refusal to allow more aid through the checkpoints it controls alongside its borders, including Rafah.
Whilst the UK prides itself as a nation steeped in upholding the rules of international law, and as institutions such as the ICC must remain independent and free from political coercion, the court’s ruling – which must in turn be voted on by its leading judges – has caused political discontent both in London and Washington, with unforeseen consequences.
The Reaction From Westminster
The court’s ruling has split consensus between the Conservative government and the Labour opposition. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters during a trip to Vienna that there is no “moral equivalence” between the Israeli Prime Minister and Hamas terrorists in the wake of the October 7 attacks on Israel, and that the ICC’s move would make “absolutely no difference” to wider peace in the Middle East.
“This is a deeply unhelpful development. Of course it is still subject to a final decision, but it remains deeply unhelpful nonetheless. There is no moral equivalence between a democratic state exercising its lawful right to self defense and the terrorist group Hamas. It is wrong to conflate and equivocate between those two different entities. What I am very clear is that this will make absolutely no difference in getting a pause in the fighting, getting aid into the region, or indeed the hostages out.”
Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak
The Prime Minister’s words mark a clear distinction with the opposition Labour party, as Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that the UK – as a party to the Rome Statute which underpins the ICC “have a legal obligation” to comply with its warrants.
Presumably therefore this would include the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister under a Labour government, should the ICC vote through Ahmad’s recommendation.
As the Labour party continue to grapple with internal party management, and the recent backlash from sizeable portions of its traditional Muslim support base disappointed by Keir Starmer’s defence of Israel, a hardening of rhetoric against Israel can likely be expected as the party seeks to win back Muslim votes in the upcoming general election.
The Reaction From Washington
Despite recently and publicly losing patience for Israel’s conduct of its limited offensive in Rafah, US President Joe Biden labelled the ICC warrant as “outrageous,” arguing that “whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas.”
Echoing Mr Biden’s clear displeasure at the court’s decision, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that he will work with lawmakers on both sides of the House on potential sanctions against the ICC, as Mr Blinken told a congressional hearing that he was “committed” to taking action against the “profoundly wrong-headed decision”.
At least two measures imposing sanctions on the ICC had already been introduced in Congress as the court ramped up its inquiry into Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza. Support on Capitol Hill appears to be coalescing around a bill launched earlier this month by Texas Republican Chip Roy.
The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act would target ICC officials involved with the case by blocking their entry to the US, revoking any current US visas they hold, and prohibiting them from any property transactions within the country – unless the court ceases its cases against “protected persons of the United States and its allies”.
Israel’s War Against Hamas Set to be an Election Debate
In both the UK and the US, how each respective government can address both the international pressure placed on Israel, in addition to both domestic party management while also addressing the general public’s attitudes and views on these issues, is set to become an election issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ultimately the rule of law must be respected and upheld by all those who value it, and whose democracies are protected by it. However, the realities of both party and societal management will also be a key factor in how Britain continues to respond and act over the coming weeks and months ahead – and in most cases, this will be a far harder call for Labour to make, than for the Conservatives.
To read more on Curia’s foreign policy analysis, please click here.