Opinion: Western objections to ICC warrants are baseless
The International Criminal Court (ICC)'s prosecutor, Karim Khan, has finally issued arrest warrants over the war in Gaza, a move that had been rumoured for weeks.
On the Hamas side, Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar, Qassam Brigades commander Mohammed Deif and political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh stand accused of eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are accused of seven counts.
Leaving aside the different words used in reaction to the prosecutor's decision by Israel and Hamas, and by their supporters, three main objections have been raised.
These include the alleged moral equivalence between Hamas and Israeli leaders established by the warrants; a dispute over the court's jurisdiction in the matter; and the principle of complementarity, under which a state has the right to investigate crimes prior to ICC intervention.
The first objection has a political nature, the other two a legal one.
A detailed rebuttal to the warrants issued by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlines all three objections. He cites the "shameful" equivalence established between Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organisation in many western countries, and the democratic government of Israel.
In retrospect, it is worth asking whether the ICC prosecutor might have avoided a political headache by issuing two separate indictments, especially considering the differences in the counts ascribed to Hamas and Israeli leaders.
Regardless, the accusation that he has drawn a moral equivalence is ludicrous.
Read more: Western objections to ICC warrants are baseless by Marco Carnelos
